The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Aelex]

It's not that I believe men are inferior. Just that there are differences between men and women that cause most men to be poor leaders. I don't know if this is biological or socially conditioned.

I am aware that some men would make good decisions if in power but it's not worth the risk. This is not a question about what is fair to wanna be leaders. It's a question of what will bring prosperity and equality to those who must live under them. The results of thousands of years of male leadership have shown us that this is a very dangerous risk to take.

Additionally, the society we have now was founded on male rule for generations and this has put men at an unfair advantage. By creating a period of female rule we could counterbalance some of the lasting effects of long term patriarchy.

Perhaps, after a period of time, we could allow a small scale experiment in sharing rule with men. This could answer the nature vs nurture component of the question above.
.

Let me give you two names. Anne d'Autriche and Mazarin. The first was a female who has soon as she get her hands in power and ruled the European Powerhouse known as France started to fuck up everything and almost ruined the kingdom entirely, the second was a man who had to do all he can to avoid everything to turn into real shit and to repair the first error.
Given this little test and following the same way of thought as you, it become quite clear that women are completely inadapted to rule and thus should let the men who proved since millenary that they were able to rule correctly most of the time. Now, it have been proved that women are poor leader, that it is biological or socially conditioned, but as us, MALEs, are benevolent and for equality; we may be kind enough to let a woman or two rule sometimes. And this may give us the answer about if all the poor women leader like Marie de Médicis or Anne d'Autriche were bad because of their gender or if it just was bad luck or coincidences.

This sarcasm aside, it's not a question of what is the gender of the ruler; but rather how skilled his the leader. Having a female ruler for the sake of having a female ruler is as stupid as having a minority as ruler for the sake of having one as ruler. It'll be more harmful than positive.
Also, as having a black president changed nothing to the really existing and almost institutionalized racism in the U.S, I doubt having a female president would change anything to the myth you call patriarchy.

[Donut section]

You know just once I'd like to come into this thread and see people talking about some of the really cool things feminists have done in the past that built women up, I'm sure they've done some stuff and hearing from people who are well versed in feminist history could provide some interesting topic points.

I would love to learn more.

Instead, we keep getting people who think they can build themselves up by tearing someone else down.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

You know just once I'd like to come into this thread and see people talking about some of the really cool things feminists have done in the past that built women up, I'm sure they've done some stuff and hearing from people who are well versed in feminist history could provide some interesting topic points.

I would love to learn more.

Instead, we keep getting people who think they can build themselves up by tearing someone else down.

Welcome to NationStates.

[Ostroeuropa]

You know just once I'd like to come into this thread and see people talking about some of the really cool things feminists have done in the past that built women up, I'm sure they've done some stuff and hearing from people who are well versed in feminist history could provide some interesting topic points.

I would love to learn more.

Instead, we keep getting people who think they can build themselves up by tearing someone else down.

The problem is, most of those achievements of feminism are looking more and more dubious as time goes on and we discover just how badly the movement has been doing in actually fighting sexism, instead of merely creating pro-women sexism and pushing a sexist narrative.

If you talk about how feminism made women confident to go out and work and build careers, you can be either:


"That's good. women should be able to have careers."
or
"Yeh, and by their unrelenting belief that the universe revolves around vaginas, their hostile dismissal of mens issues at the time, and their demand to have a monopoly on the gender narrative, they not only failed to put equal emphasis on the idea of men doing domestic work and parenting, resulting in men being pressured even harder to compete with women entering the workforce since they couldn't be stay at home fathers, but also effectively prevented anyone else talking about that issue. Through their focus on womens issues, and their dogmatic belief that ALL sexism issues are womens issues, and that talking about mens issues or implying they have any is sexism, they have caused huge damage to society. All they managed to accomplish was a complete collapse in wages by doubling the number of competitors for jobs. Men were still not allowed to be stay at home dads, so women still ended up doing that, and as a result their careers were stunted and half-formed. It made EVERYBODY worse off, and made men even more stressed out at having to compete (Since, shocker, feminists ignored that men need a job and such to have any fucking worth in society at all, whereas women are inherently valued. Do women honestly think they can compete with a person who's right to be treated as a member of the fucking species is riding on the line? That's utterly delusional. He wants it more than you do, and nothing will change that until you fix his situation. By even trying, all you are doing is forcing him to push himself into unhealthy levels of devotion. If you do that too, you might be able to edge him out if you're skilled, but is that really worth it?), lower wages over all, less worker rights, etc. Good game feminists, you fucked the dog again. You wanna tackle domestic violence next? I can't wait to see how you fuck that up too."

ANY discussion of feminsims "achievements" is inevitably going to have a huge fucking elephant in the room, and that elephant is that feminism is a sexist movement that actively causes the problems it pretends to solve because of it's warped understanding of how sexism works.

I'm sure that the Klan does wonderful things for white people. But every time people discuss it, all we hear about is the poor black people.

Even the third wave has this type of feminist. Just look at the mens rights thread to see some of them going ballistic over the notion that sexism happens to men too.

If you can find an achievement of feminism to discuss that doesn't immediately have an overlooked fuckup and clusterfuck, then by all means, but you'll be searching for a while. In my opinion that's because feminism is fundamentally and inherently flawed as an outlook, attempting to apply it to reality will ALWAYS cause problems.

[Val Halla]

I wonder, is it TERFs that are the main hinderance in trans rights, even over the religious right?

I think it's both.

It's the dark side of feminism. Operating under the guise of equality to get away with being bigoted.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's both.

It's the dark side of feminism. Operating under the guise of equality to get away with being bigoted.

I still don't understand why anyone would identify as a feminist when they know all it does is contribute to the one-sided sexism narrative.
Is your sense of identity more important than actually getting the job done?

I don't know how I can better put this.

You're kind of like UKIP, let's say.

You keep insisting that you aren't a sexist, but you're ignoring that you are Of Their Party.
They have power because of their coalition with you.
You empower sexists by calling yourself a feminist.
You can't change that about your movement, they won't leave it, you have to.
And failing to do so makes claims that you support the end of sexism seem really, really hollow when you aren't willing to do something so simple to help stop it.

It's like a bunch of right wingers saying they aren't racists, then lining up to give money, legitimacy, and political support to a massively racist political party.
It no longer actually matters if they are racists, they are supporting racism.

So it goes with feminists.

[Val Halla]

It's the dark side of feminism. Operating under the guise of equality to get away with being bigoted.

I still don't understand why anyone would identify as a feminist when they know all it does is contribute to the one-sided sexism narrative.
Is your sense of identity more important than actually getting the job done?

I don't know how I can better put this.

You're kind of like UKIP, let's say.

You keep insisting that you aren't a sexist, but you're ignoring that you are Of Their Party.
They have power because of their coalition with you.
You empower sexists by calling yourself a feminist.
You can't change that about your movement, they won't leave it, you have to.
And failing to do so makes claims that you support the end of sexism seem really, really hollow when you aren't willing to do something so simple to help stop it.

Because we're not all like that. It's kind of silly to think that.

[Ostroeuropa]

I still don't understand why anyone would identify as a feminist when they know all it does is contribute to the one-sided sexism narrative.
Is your sense of identity more important than actually getting the job done?

I don't know how I can better put this.

You're kind of like UKIP, let's say.

You keep insisting that you aren't a sexist, but you're ignoring that you are Of Their Party.
They have power because of their coalition with you.
You empower sexists by calling yourself a feminist.
You can't change that about your movement, they won't leave it, you have to.
And failing to do so makes claims that you support the end of sexism seem really, really hollow when you aren't willing to do something so simple to help stop it.

Because we're not all like that. It's kind of silly to think that.

No, but you're all a problem. (Partway through the post.)

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=342581&p=25624043#p25624043

Etc.

By even calling yourself a feminist, you are preventing men from properly engaging with gender equality because of how the term is perceived and such, as well as lending legitimacy and credence to a movement that is hateful.
All of it's institutions and lobbying groups are problematic. The only reason they have any power is because feminists with no power keep asserting that not all feminists are like that. Well, all the ones with power are.

I do not care if you get five million people to say the Klan is about marijuana and bongo drums. You are fucking wrong.
What you are talking about is a fantasy, it doesn't exist. We're talking about the ACTUAL KLAN.
The one that actually effects peoples lives day to day.
So could you kindly shut up about how people should be Klan members, or going around trying to make their reputation better?
The feminist movement IS sexist. That is a fact. You're just interacting with a fantasy.

Then there is THIS problem:

viewtopic.php?p=25659674#p25659674
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=350826&p=25755839#p25755839
viewtopic.php?p=25760310#p25760310

Basically, why the hell do you call yourself a feminist? It does absolutely no good, and a bunch of bad.

[Chessmistress]

It's not that I believe men are inferior. Just that there are differences between men and women that cause most men to be poor leaders. I don't know if this is biological or socially conditioned.

I am aware that some men would make good decisions if in power but it's not worth the risk. This is not a question about what is fair to wanna be leaders. It's a question of what will bring prosperity and equality to those who must live under them. The results of thousands of years of male leadership have shown us that this is a very dangerous risk to take.

Additionally, the society we have now was founded on male rule for generations and this has put men at an unfair advantage. By creating a period of female rule we could counterbalance some of the lasting effects of long term patriarchy.

Perhaps, after a period of time, we could allow a small scale experiment in sharing rule with men. This could answer the nature vs nurture component of the question above.

Again I'm not a feminist. So you should not be surprised if I don't agree with feminist arguments.

It seems the same bullshit my partner shout sometimes.
Even worse, my partner label herself "Feminist".
As Radical Feminist, I don't endorse matriarchy.
I just only want substantive equality.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

It's not that I believe men are inferior. Just that there are differences between men and women that cause most men to be poor leaders. I don't know if this is biological or socially conditioned.

I am aware that some men would make good decisions if in power but it's not worth the risk. This is not a question about what is fair to wanna be leaders. It's a question of what will bring prosperity and equality to those who must live under them. The results of thousands of years of male leadership have shown us that this is a very dangerous risk to take.

Additionally, the society we have now was founded on male rule for generations and this has put men at an unfair advantage. By creating a period of female rule we could counterbalance some of the lasting effects of long term patriarchy.

Perhaps, after a period of time, we could allow a small scale experiment in sharing rule with men. This could answer the nature vs nurture component of the question above.

Again I'm not a feminist. So you should not be surprised if I don't agree with feminist arguments.

It seems the same bullshit my partner shout sometimes.
Even worse, my partner label herself "Feminist".
As Radical Feminist, I don't endorse matriarchy.
I just only want substantive equality.

....

"Let them fight."

[CTALNH]

It's the dark side of feminism. Operating under the guise of equality to get away with being bigoted.

I still don't understand why anyone would identify as a feminist when they know all it does is contribute to the one-sided sexism narrative.
Is your sense of identity more important than actually getting the job done?

I don't know how I can better put this.

You're kind of like UKIP, let's say.

You keep insisting that you aren't a sexist, but you're ignoring that you are Of Their Party.
They have power because of their coalition with you.
You empower sexists by calling yourself a feminist.
You can't change that about your movement, they won't leave it, you have to.
And failing to do so makes claims that you support the end of sexism seem really, really hollow when you aren't willing to do something so simple to help stop it.

It's like a bunch of right wingers saying they aren't racists, then lining up to give money, legitimacy, and political support to a massively racist political party.
It no longer actually matters if they are racists, they are supporting racism.

So it goes with feminists.

Ostroeuropa I think your biased by saying the entire feminist movement is what the radical stupid people calling themselves feminist is.


I am a feminist.I am a also a leftist should we doom the entire leftist movement because I exist?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

You know just once I'd like to come into this thread and see people talking about some of the really cool things feminists have done in the past that built women up, I'm sure they've done some stuff and hearing from people who are well versed in feminist history could provide some interesting topic points.

I would love to learn more.

Instead, we keep getting people who think they can build themselves up by tearing someone else down.

Welcome to NationStates.

To be fair, you do that as well.

[Snail-land]

You know just once I'd like to come into this thread and see people talking about some of the really cool things feminists have done in the past that built women up, I'm sure they've done some stuff and hearing from people who are well versed in feminist history could provide some interesting topic points.

I would love to learn more.

Instead, we keep getting people who think they can build themselves up by tearing someone else down.

The problem is, most of those achievements of feminism are looking more and more dubious as time goes on and we discover just how badly the movement has been doing in actually fighting sexism, instead of merely creating pro-women sexism and pushing a sexist narrative.

If you talk about how feminism made women confident to go out and work and build careers, you can be either:


"That's good. women should be able to have careers."
or
"Yeh, and by their unrelenting belief that the universe revolves around vaginas, their hostile dismissal of mens issues at the time, and their demand to have a monopoly on the gender narrative, they not only failed to put equal emphasis on the idea of men doing domestic work and parenting, resulting in men being pressured even harder to compete with women entering the workforce since they couldn't be stay at home fathers, but also effectively prevented anyone else talking about that issue. Through their focus on womens issues, and their dogmatic belief that ALL sexism issues are womens issues, and that talking about mens issues or implying they have any is sexism, they have caused huge damage to society. All they managed to accomplish was a complete collapse in wages by doubling the number of competitors for jobs. Men were still not allowed to be stay at home dads, so women still ended up doing that, and as a result their careers were stunted and half-formed. It made EVERYBODY worse off, and made men even more stressed out at having to compete (Since, shocker, feminists ignored that men need a job and such to have any fucking worth in society at all, whereas women are inherently valued. Do women honestly think they can compete with a person who's right to be treated as a member of the fucking species is riding on the line? That's utterly delusional. He wants it more than you do, and nothing will change that until you fix his situation. By even trying, all you are doing is forcing him to push himself into unhealthy levels of devotion. If you do that too, you might be able to edge him out if you're skilled, but is that really worth it?), lower wages over all, less worker rights, etc. Good game feminists, you fucked the dog again. You wanna tackle domestic violence next? I can't wait to see how you fuck that up too."

ANY discussion of feminsims "achievements" is inevitably going to have a huge fucking elephant in the room, and that elephant is that feminism is a sexist movement that actively causes the problems it pretends to solve because of it's warped understanding of how sexism works.

I'm sure that the Klan does wonderful things for white people. But every time people discuss it, all we hear about is the poor black people.

Even the third wave has this type of feminist. Just look at the mens rights thread to see some of them going ballistic over the notion that sexism happens to men too.

If you can find an achievement of feminism to discuss that doesn't immediately have an overlooked fuckup and clusterfuck, then by all means, but you'll be searching for a while. In my opinion that's because feminism is fundamentally and inherently flawed as an outlook, attempting to apply it to reality will ALWAYS cause problems.

Are you seriously arguing that women shouldn't have been given the freedom to work outside of the home? Most of the negatives you associate with women having careers can be attributed to capitalism, not to feminism. Also, as a feminist, I would very much like to see men have more options, such as working as homemakers. There is still an imbalance when women are expected to work twice as much as men by taking on both roles. Rather than moving backward to a time when half of the country's potential was wasted by the adherence to strict, traditional gender roles, wouldn't you rather see things progress in a positive direction, where we can all live authentically and use our skills?

Your position is just as offensive to me as the arguments Misandrist Mantis was making last night, except in the opposite direction. In fact, you seem to be even more extreme. Misandrist Mantis was only calling for men to be banned from leadership roles. You seem to want women banned from nearly all roles. I can't believe anyone actually thinks this way.

[Ostroeuropa]

The problem is, most of those achievements of feminism are looking more and more dubious as time goes on and we discover just how badly the movement has been doing in actually fighting sexism, instead of merely creating pro-women sexism and pushing a sexist narrative.

If you talk about how feminism made women confident to go out and work and build careers, you can be either:


"That's good. women should be able to have careers."
or
"Yeh, and by their unrelenting belief that the universe revolves around vaginas, their hostile dismissal of mens issues at the time, and their demand to have a monopoly on the gender narrative, they not only failed to put equal emphasis on the idea of men doing domestic work and parenting, resulting in men being pressured even harder to compete with women entering the workforce since they couldn't be stay at home fathers, but also effectively prevented anyone else talking about that issue. Through their focus on womens issues, and their dogmatic belief that ALL sexism issues are womens issues, and that talking about mens issues or implying they have any is sexism, they have caused huge damage to society. All they managed to accomplish was a complete collapse in wages by doubling the number of competitors for jobs. Men were still not allowed to be stay at home dads, so women still ended up doing that, and as a result their careers were stunted and half-formed. It made EVERYBODY worse off, and made men even more stressed out at having to compete (Since, shocker, feminists ignored that men need a job and such to have any fucking worth in society at all, whereas women are inherently valued. Do women honestly think they can compete with a person who's right to be treated as a member of the fucking species is riding on the line? That's utterly delusional. He wants it more than you do, and nothing will change that until you fix his situation. By even trying, all you are doing is forcing him to push himself into unhealthy levels of devotion. If you do that too, you might be able to edge him out if you're skilled, but is that really worth it?), lower wages over all, less worker rights, etc. Good game feminists, you fucked the dog again. You wanna tackle domestic violence next? I can't wait to see how you fuck that up too."

ANY discussion of feminsims "achievements" is inevitably going to have a huge fucking elephant in the room, and that elephant is that feminism is a sexist movement that actively causes the problems it pretends to solve because of it's warped understanding of how sexism works.

I'm sure that the Klan does wonderful things for white people. But every time people discuss it, all we hear about is the poor black people.

Even the third wave has this type of feminist. Just look at the mens rights thread to see some of them going ballistic over the notion that sexism happens to men too.

If you can find an achievement of feminism to discuss that doesn't immediately have an overlooked fuckup and clusterfuck, then by all means, but you'll be searching for a while. In my opinion that's because feminism is fundamentally and inherently flawed as an outlook, attempting to apply it to reality will ALWAYS cause problems.

Are you seriously arguing that women shouldn't have been given the freedom to work outside of the home? Most of the negatives you associate with women having careers can be attributed to capitalism, not to feminism. Also, as a feminist, I would very much like to see men have more options, such as working as homemakers. There is still an imbalance when women are expected to work twice as much as men by taking on both roles. Rather than moving backward to a time when half of the country's potential was wasted by the adherence to strict, traditional gender roles, wouldn't you rather see things progress in a positive direction, where we can all live authentically and use our skills?

Your position is just as offensive to me as the arguments Misandrist Mantis was making last night, except in the opposite direction. In fact, you seem to be even more extreme. Misandrist Mantis was only calling for men to be banned from leadership roles. You seem to want women banned from nearly all roles. I can't believe anyone actually thinks this way.

Certainly not. I'm against sexism and gender roles. My beef with feminism is it's unrelenting gynocentricity.
You may say you're opposed to men being forced into gender roles, but because of your focus on women and your movements resolute refusal to allow other gender equality movements to exist, you cause the issues like the one I outlined.
I am of the opinion that feminisms gynocentricity makes it completely incapable of serving as an adequate gender equality movement. You only generate more problems when you try.

Such as here:
viewtopic.php?p=25710333#p25710333

Because of feminisms gynocentric outlook on the problem, all of their attempts to actually solve sexism only end up fucking everything up. You can apply this to basically all of their campaigns and find how they've only accomplished a good media spin on a trainwreck.

I'm saying if the wave of feminists trying to get women into careers could have gotten over their stupid dogma for a moment and advocated for actual balanced roles instead of just shouting over and over that women need to be accepted into careers, and women are oppressed, and blah blah they wouldn't have fucked over the working class, they wouldn't have placed even more pressure on men to provide and protect, they wouldn't have caused women to have to bitterly abandon careers halfway through, etc.

Because the feminist movement is gynocentric and uses oppressor-oppressed dynamics and shit, they are a complete clusterfuck. When you say you are a feminist, you're admitting to being one of the major reasons for our societies current level of fuckedness.

This would all be fine if they behaved like actual scientists instead of social scientists and admitted that theory seems wrong and needs to be rebalanced, but they just double down on their stupid dogma and tighten their control of the media. It's pathetic.

You're like a bunch of newtonian physicists shouting at the engineers for the planes they make keep crashing, and you're refusing to accept their explanation that newtonian physics is fucking outdated.
By being a feminist, you may as well admit to being a flat earther or something. It's ridiculous.

Like all the fucking whining over the wage gap. It's just pathetic at this point. Your ideologies view of how sexism works is fucking wrong, get over it.

The reason feminism consistently fucks up is that their adherents don't notice that the founders of their ideology thought the universe revolved around their genitals and had huge fucking egos and were arrogant as shit.
The reason that they managed to tear down the stigma against women in careers and did fuck all to deal with the men at home issue is that they thought mens problems were an expansion of their own, that if their problems could be solved, mens would magically go away, and if only we could get women into careers then men could be dads too, because sexism is against women, not against both. They thought that just saying they were in favor of men staying at home too was enough, compared to actively campaigning and protesting in the media constantly for women to get into careers.
So because of their massive egos, arrogance, and stupid assumptions, they greatly damaged society, especially the working class.
Modern feminists are usually no better.

They seem fucking incapable of noticing that mens genders roles are as strict as ever, and womens are looser and looser.
They still keep insisting mens problems are because of sexism against women, and keep shutting down movements to try and deal with sexism against men.

Like I said.
It's fucking pathetic.
Why on earth would you want to be a feminist unless you're an arrogant asshole who thinks everything revolves around your vagina? I just don't get it. Maybe you just didn't notice how badly the movement is screwing up. Maybe you think that's all true, but you're a different kind of feminist. In which case i've got arguments against that too.
Basically, in my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse to call yourself a feminist. These problems i've outlined make feminism a de-facto female supremacy movement, though it's also one for other reasons too.


You know that bit about women having to abandon their careers halfway through and stuff? And the wage gap and all that?
Modern feminists spend most of their time bitching and complaining about problems caused by their own stupid ideology.
Wahhh, women get paid less, clearly this is oppression against women!
(This is the fucking attitude that caused the problem in the first place.)
No, it's that men are pressured into being workaholics, and sexism against men in becoming stay at home dads, and a bunch of other shit. But no, just keep bitching and complaining about how everything revolves around women. It hasn't worked so far, but i'm sure it will eventually.

There's basically no womens issues at this point actually caused by sexism against women. (The ones that were have been fixed.) They're usually the result of sexism against men, which is why feminism is getting more and more authoritarian and hysterical in order to try and fix these issues. It's either that, or admit they were all wrong and being arrogant the whole time.

[MisandristMantis]

It's not that I believe men are inferior. Just that there are differences between men and women that cause most men to be poor leaders. I don't know if this is biological or socially conditioned.

I am aware that some men would make good decisions if in power but it's not worth the risk. This is not a question about what is fair to wanna be leaders. It's a question of what will bring prosperity and equality to those who must live under them. The results of thousands of years of male leadership have shown us that this is a very dangerous risk to take.

Additionally, the society we have now was founded on male rule for generations and this has put men at an unfair advantage. By creating a period of female rule we could counterbalance some of the lasting effects of long term patriarchy.

Perhaps, after a period of time, we could allow a small scale experiment in sharing rule with men. This could answer the nature vs nurture component of the question above.
.

Let me give you two names. Anne d'Autriche and Mazarin. The first was a female who has soon as she get her hands in power and ruled the European Powerhouse known as France started to fuck up everything and almost ruined the kingdom entirely, the second was a man who had to do all he can to avoid everything to turn into real shit and to repair the first error.
Given this little test and following the same way of thought as you, it become quite clear that women are completely inadapted to rule and thus should let the men who proved since millenary that they were able to rule correctly most of the time. Now, it have been proved that women are poor leader, that it is biological or socially conditioned, but as us, MALEs, are benevolent and for equality; we may be kind enough to let a woman or two rule sometimes. And this may give us the answer about if all the poor women leader like Marie de Médicis or Anne d'Autriche were bad because of their gender or if it just was bad luck or coincidences.

This sarcasm aside, it's not a question of what is the gender of the ruler; but rather how skilled his the leader. Having a female ruler for the sake of having a female ruler is as stupid as having a minority as ruler for the sake of having one as ruler. It'll be more harmful than positive.
Also, as having a black president changed nothing to the really existing and almost institutionalized racism in the U.S, I doubt having a female president would change anything to the myth you call patriarchy.

I suppose I need to clarify. I'm calling for matriarchy and mentioned that this is why I oppose feminism. I am not calling for an occasional female head of state in an otherwise patriarchal society. I am not even calling for 50 male senators dominating 50 female senators and calling it "equality".

My argument is not that everything would be better if you put a woman in charge of a patriarchal state. My argument is that, based on how men have led society and how men have used their power in the past, there is no reason we should allow them any social power.

Sadly men (as a class) have shown that they are unable to fairly handle social, economic, or political power without harming both women and men.

[Kelinfort]

Well, we have a rad fem TERF/SWERF, a Matriarch, a radical who denies all and any benefits of feminism, and then the sane people.

Oh, things have gone down hill.

[Arcturus Novus]

Well, we have a rad fem TERF/SWERF, a Matriarch, a radical who denies all and any benefits of feminism, and then the sane people.

Oh, things have gone down hill.

It's alarming and makes me question how much of this is gonna be used for ammunition in the MRA thread.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, we have a rad fem TERF/SWERF, a Matriarch, a radical who denies all and any benefits of feminism, and then the sane people.

Oh, things have gone down hill.

Feminism is fine for getting rid of traditional conservative type misogyny in a society.
Sort of like how paying a blind hobo to remove your appendix can help with appendicitis.

But it's still a really, really stupid idea when there are much better options.

[Arcturus Novus]

Well, we have a rad fem TERF/SWERF, a Matriarch, a radical who denies all and any benefits of feminism, and then the sane people.

Oh, things have gone down hill.

Feminism is fine for getting rid of traditional conservative type misogyny in a society.
Sort of like how paying a blind hobo to remove your appendix can help with appendicitis.

But it's still a really, really stupid idea when there are much better options.

You come into my house
Insult my ideology
Feminism definitely has its flaws, but there aren't too many better options out there that are meant to empower women and put them on a level playing field with men.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminism is fine for getting rid of traditional conservative type misogyny in a society.
Sort of like how paying a blind hobo to remove your appendix can help with appendicitis.

But it's still a really, really stupid idea when there are much better options.

You come into my house
Insult my ideology
Feminism definitely has its flaws, but there aren't too many better options out there that are meant to empower women and put them on a level playing field with men.

Congratulations.
You managed to come in here and demonstrate you're one of those feminists who is screwing the pooch. (I would have said fucking the dog, because i'm a fan of switching the expression to it, but eh, i'm worried you wouldn't get the reference and would be offended.)

viewtopic.php?p=25772487#p25772487

Get over the ridiculous notion that women need to be brought up to a level playing field with men. That's not how sexism works, and your movements continual insistence that it does is causing huge fucking problems for everybody.
Read that, including the linked post, then come back and tell me with a straight face you honestly believe in what you just said.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I'm gonna pull a feminist card, place it on the table, and say anyone who truly supports what they say and doesn't try to save face, or actually does something to help men and women, but calls themselves a feminist....

Is actually egalitarian.

Edit: I mean fuck, even when Muslims say people like ISIS don't represent them they at least try to back that shit up while saving face, in an effort to prove them wrong.

If you wanna save face, you have to prove you can back it up, and you have to be loud while doing it, even if people call you out saying you're doing good shit just for attention ignore them, because the fact of life is that the stupid will speak their shit a whole lot louder than moderates in the same camp, you need to outshout them, and take them to task. Humans tend to remember the negative a whole lot easier than positives, and in this day of the internet...pssh you need to double that effort to shut them out.

I'm fucking tired of people trying to say not all feminist are like tumblrites....

Give us some evidence, especially to those of us who had the displeasure to see what the louder extremist have done.

I've been neutral for a while but I have been pushed away because I don't see enough positives.

I don't think some of you are stupid, hell I don't even think Chessmistress is stupid and she is a good example imo of people who hamper the moderates image as a movement.

[Tierra Prime]

It's not that I believe men are inferior. Just that there are differences between men and women that cause most men to be poor leaders. I don't know if this is biological or socially conditioned.

I am aware that some men would make good decisions if in power but it's not worth the risk. This is not a question about what is fair to wanna be leaders. It's a question of what will bring prosperity and equality to those who must live under them. The results of thousands of years of male leadership have shown us that this is a very dangerous risk to take.

Additionally, the society we have now was founded on male rule for generations and this has put men at an unfair advantage. By creating a period of female rule we could counterbalance some of the lasting effects of long term patriarchy.

Perhaps, after a period of time, we could allow a small scale experiment in sharing rule with men. This could answer the nature vs nurture component of the question above.

Again I'm not a feminist. So you should not be surprised if I don't agree with feminist arguments.

It seems the same bullshit my partner shout sometimes.
Even worse, my partner label herself "Feminist".
As Radical Feminist, I don't endorse matriarchy.
I just only want substantive equality.

We know exactly what you want and it isn't equality.

I'm surprised you still bother to post considering your world view has been systematically deconstructed multiple times.

[Tahar Joblis]

Feminism is fine for getting rid of traditional conservative type misogyny in a society.
Sort of like how paying a blind hobo to remove your appendix can help with appendicitis.

But it's still a really, really stupid idea when there are much better options.

You come into my house
Insult my ideology
Feminism definitely has its flaws, but there aren't too many better options out there that are meant to empower women and put them on a level playing field with men.

You''ve listed two conflicting goals. You can either seek to empower women, or you can seek a level playing field. Gender equality is fundamentally at odds with empowering one particular sex.

When the two conflict, the feminist movement collectively chooses empowerment as its more important goal every time.

[Fartsniffage]

You come into my house
Insult my ideology
Feminism definitely has its flaws, but there aren't too many better options out there that are meant to empower women and put them on a level playing field with men.

You''ve listed two conflicting goals. You can either seek to empower women, or you can seek a level playing field. Gender equality is fundamentally at odds with empowering one particular sex.

When the two conflict, the feminist movement collectively chooses empowerment as its more important goal every time.

This requires the assumption that women are already level with men.

[Tahar Joblis]

You''ve listed two conflicting goals. You can either seek to empower women, or you can seek a level playing field. Gender equality is fundamentally at odds with empowering one particular sex.

When the two conflict, the feminist movement collectively chooses empowerment as its more important goal every time.

This requires the assumption that women are already level with men.

No, it doesn't.

Assuming that they are compatible requires assuming that women will always be an oppressed class. Requires assuming that the field is unequivocally tilted in favor of men, as a universal fact. Conflicts don't actually require a globally level playing field; they only require a playing field that is, in some local area, not sloped in men's favor - whether it's locally level or locally sloped in women's favor.

A nice example: Child custody. Child custody, in the US and UK, clearly favored women by the time 1900 rolled around. At the time, only a few states permitted women the vote; but almost all states favored women in child custody disputes. At that point, no subsequent action empowering women could help level the playing field in that particular spot... even if there were plenty of areas of the playing field where women's empowerment and equality were compatible, that wasn't one.

Over time, what we've seen is that there are increasingly few, if any, areas in which men are genuinely favored by an uneven playing field - but there are also very few areas in which feminists are not still siding with female empowerment. Feminist organizations to this day treat any case of a woman losing a custody dispute as a symptom of class oppression... in spite of the fact that that particular playing field hasn't been tilted against women since the 19th century.