Does Feminism Logically Conclude to Authoritarianism?

[The Cobalt Sky]

Please, please, please not another Feminism thread.

Hey. Don't you insult Adnan Nawaz and a bunch of bureaucrats who are somewhere else. I think they worked very hard to make this thread.

[Chessmistress]

No, radical feminism on the other hand does lead to authoritarianism.

See, radical feminism is still feminism. Whilst it may be in the minority, it is still a part of the movement.

I think that Radical Feminism is the only really relevant part of Feminism, because things like Convention of Istanbul and yes-means-yes law are Radical Feminist policies.
I think that others have accomplished nothing, apart from most them siding with us at the moment of truth.

That can led to "authoritarianism"?
No, I don't think so.
That can led to women's empowerment.
Women are 51% population, and 60% of enrollments in higher education: we deserve a power proportionate to that.
Would you be scared, or define it "authoritarianism", if twenty years from now, a democratically elected and democratic government would be composed by 55% or even 60% women?
Nobody should be scared by that.
Also because it'll happen, for sure.

[Stellonia]

See, radical feminism is still feminism. Whilst it may be in the minority, it is still a part of the movement.

I think that Radical Feminism is the only really relevant part of Feminism, because things like Convention of Istanbul and yes-means-yes law are Radical Feminist policies.
I think that others have accomplished nothing, apart from most them siding with us at the moment of truth.

That can led to "authoritarianism"?
No, I don't think so.
That can led to women's empowerment.
Women are 51% population, and 60% of enrollments in higher education: we deserve a power proportionate to that.
Would you be scared, or define it "authoritarianism", if twenty years from now, a democratically elected and democratic government would be composed by 55% or even 60% women?
Nobody should be scared by that.
Also because it'll happen, for sure.

Maybe in Sweden or Rwanda.

[Stellonia]

See, radical feminism is still feminism. Whilst it may be in the minority, it is still a part of the movement.

I think that Radical Feminism is the only really relevant part of Feminism, because things like Convention of Istanbul and yes-means-yes law are Radical Feminist policies.
I think that others have accomplished nothing, apart from most them siding with us at the moment of truth.

That can led to "authoritarianism"?
No, I don't think so.
That can led to women's empowerment.
Women are 51% population, and 60% of enrollments in higher education: we deserve a power proportionate to that.
Would you be scared, or define it "authoritarianism", if twenty years from now, a democratically elected and democratic government would be composed by 55% or even 60% women?
Nobody should be scared by that.
Also because it'll happen, for sure.

Maybe in Sweden or Rwanda, but certainly not here in the States.

[North America Inc]

I thought its already established that any radical movement whether it be leftist or right wing, will continue to try justify its existence by fear mongering. So yes in theory, radical feminism could lead to a do called authoritarian state but while these radicals may have a loud voice, they lack in influence in order to facilitate the changes. They lack the capital and the power in order to ignite real reconstruction of society.The 'silent majority' bloc of feminism is where real change for opportunity equality occurs.

So in short, no, it's doesn't lead to a pseudo fascist state as the radical feminist lack any real influence. You used the Marxist reference as an example off this but I'd I may point out the radicals did not take control through a slow methodical reconstruction of society but rather a quick sudden revolution most likely through violence. Radicals of any group needs to have change occur quickly and violently in order for their view point to be accepted -or rather forced on. Since radical feminists are probably the last likely group to have a gun, I think we're safe.

[Haktiva]

Feminism gets the state involved in people's lives a while lot more, but we'll never see some female dictator or whatever in thee classical sense.

[The New Sea Territory]

I thought its already established that any radical movement whether it be leftist or right wing, will continue to try justify its existence by fear mongering.

Really now? Where's your "evidence" of such a vague claim?

Feminism gets the state involved in people's lives a while lot more, but we'll never see some female dictator or whatever in thee classical sense.

This is not necessarily true.

[Chessmistress]

Feminism gets the state involved in people's lives a while lot more, but we'll never see some female dictator or whatever in thee classical sense.

I totally agree on that.
The State will be more and more involved in people's lives just only in order to ensure a fair treatment of women, true gender equality.
I'm even pretty sure that the most important steps towards substantive equality will be made under a male authority: in example, the first gendered law protecting women - and just only women - from domestic violence, was made in Spain in 2004 by Zapatero, a male.

[Haktiva]

I thought its already established that any radical movement whether it be leftist or right wing, will continue to try justify its existence by fear mongering.

Really now? Where's your "evidence" of such a vague claim?

Feminism gets the state involved in people's lives a while lot more, but we'll never see some female dictator or whatever in thee classical sense.

This is not necessarily true.

they sure as hell get a lot more laws passed when it comes to how women are treated in every facet of life(some good) and fund a lot of social programs that take all of my monopoly money(not as much as other corporate welfare taxes)

[North America Inc]

I thought its already established that any radical movement whether it be leftist or right wing, will continue to try justify its existence by fear mongering.

Really now? Where's your "evidence" of such a vague claim?

Feminism gets the state involved in people's lives a while lot more, but we'll never see some female dictator or whatever in thee classical sense.

This is not necessarily true.

Can you give me an example of a radical group that doesn't have an us against the world attitude? I'm geneuinelly curious.

[Haktiva]

Feminism gets the state involved in people's lives a while lot more, but we'll never see some female dictator or whatever in thee classical sense.

I totally agree on that.
The State will be more and more involved in people's lives just only in order to ensure a fair treatment of women, true gender equality.
I'm even pretty sure that the most important steps towards substantive equality will be made under a male authority: in example, the first gendered law protecting women - and just only women - from domestic violence, was made in Spain in 2004 by Zapatero, a male.

a lot of guys are white knights thanks to their male mother need. as long as they don't drag me along, I'll be fine. course if I had all the power over society, everyone who'd wanna be a citizen would have the same rights and responsibilities to the letter. and anyone who complained would have to watch The Room for a week straight.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

1. See womanism, which you will probably decry for trying to achieve racial equality by focusing on women of color, despite also decrying the act of not doing that when it comes to feminism,
2. If you find anyone other than a radfem advocating the violent otherthrow of the state to establish a new, matriarchal state, let me know. That is literally not a position held by anyone in the mainstream. I suppose an insurrectionary anarcha-feminist would want to "overthrow the dynamics of society by force"?
3. Radfems are to feminists what westboro baptist is to christians and ISIS is to muslims. There's always gonna be crazies.

Feminism tends to focus on one gender in trying to create equality between the sexes because what's presently unequal between the sexes is that that one of the genders is hardly ever focused on by anyone.

[Khadgar]

I have to ask, when did it just become accepted dogma on the internet that feminism is more evil than Nazism? I mean, there are so many "Women are fucking EVIL" threads going on right now that I'm honestly hoping for the end of humanity because the stupid is starting to sear my brain.

[Laerod]

I have to ask, when did it just become accepted dogma on the internet that feminism is more evil than Nazism? I mean, there are so many "Women are fucking EVIL" threads going on right now that I'm honestly hoping for the end of humanity because the stupid is starting to sear my brain.

When? At the end of the school year, one would assume.

[Stellonia]

I have to ask, when did it just become accepted dogma on the internet that feminism is more evil than Nazism? I mean, there are so many "Women are fucking EVIL" threads going on right now that I'm honestly hoping for the end of humanity because the stupid is starting to sear my brain.

Would you please provide a link to one of these "women are evil" threads you mention?

[Salus Maior]

*sigh*.... No, it does not. Not actual feminism anyway.

[Chessmistress]

Really now? Where's your "evidence" of such a vague claim?



This is not necessarily true.

they sure as hell get a lot more laws passed when it comes to how women are treated in every facet of life(some good) and fund a lot of social programs that take all of my monopoly money(not as much as other corporate welfare taxes)

What is "monopoly money"?
The things you're saying will be realised first, I think and I hope, in UK under Jeremy Corbyn, who will be, probably, the new leader of Labor.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438076296

[Neutraligon]

No more then any ideology. For instance, does being Christian or Buddhist or Republican or Democrat, etc lead to Authoritarianism. Using the OPs standard every ideology leads to Authoritarianism, simply because in every ideology there are a minority of extremists.

[Chessmistress]

I totally agree on that.
The State will be more and more involved in people's lives just only in order to ensure a fair treatment of women, true gender equality.
I'm even pretty sure that the most important steps towards substantive equality will be made under a male authority: in example, the first gendered law protecting women - and just only women - from domestic violence, was made in Spain in 2004 by Zapatero, a male.

a lot of guys are white knights thanks to their male mother need. as long as they don't drag me along, I'll be fine. course if I had all the power over society, everyone who'd wanna be a citizen would have the same rights and responsibilities to the letter. and anyone who complained would have to watch The Room for a week straight.

Oh, don't worry.
Nobody will force you to marry.
With empowerment, women wil need husbands less and lesser, and the males who will wish marry or having long-term relationships will have to have higher standards and to behave in a better way.
On the other hand, with the proliferation and the extension of yes-means-yes-like laws, males will have to be very careful and polite even during one-night-stands and the likes, so I guess that we'll see some famous PUAs in jail in the future.
And, of course, sooner or later, almost everywhere prostitution will be regulated by the Nordic Model. in Europe that's sure, since EU Parliament voted it as policy for all Europe, on February 2014.

[Haktiva]

a lot of guys are white knights thanks to their male mother need. as long as they don't drag me along, I'll be fine. course if I had all the power over society, everyone who'd wanna be a citizen would have the same rights and responsibilities to the letter. and anyone who complained would have to watch The Room for a week straight.

Oh, don't worry.
Nobody will force you to marry.
With empowerment, women wil need husbands less and lesser, and the males who will wish marry or having long-term relationships will have to have higher standards and to behave in a better way.
On the other hand, with the proliferation and the extension of yes-means-yes-like laws, males will have to be very careful and polite even during one-night-stands and the likes, so I guess that we'll see some famous PUAs in jail in the future.
And, of course, sooner or later, almost everywhere prostitution will be regulated by the Nordic Model. in Europe that's sure, since EU Parliament voted it as policy for all Europe, on February 2014.

I would argue that feminism is good for men in that it's shock to the system. women are no longer bound to their traditional roles, so neither are we men. that being said, women can pay for their own shit. I don't wanna pay for anything I won't benefit from. I don't benefit by women having cheaper stuff and their own social programs.

[Chessmistress]

Oh, don't worry.
Nobody will force you to marry.
With empowerment, women wil need husbands less and lesser, and the males who will wish marry or having long-term relationships will have to have higher standards and to behave in a better way.
On the other hand, with the proliferation and the extension of yes-means-yes-like laws, males will have to be very careful and polite even during one-night-stands and the likes, so I guess that we'll see some famous PUAs in jail in the future.
And, of course, sooner or later, almost everywhere prostitution will be regulated by the Nordic Model. in Europe that's sure, since EU Parliament voted it as policy for all Europe, on February 2014.

I would argue that feminism is good for men in that it's shock to the system. women are no longer bound to their traditional roles, so neither are we men. that being said, women can pay for their own shit. I don't wanna pay for anything I won't benefit from. I don't benefit by women having cheaper stuff and their own social programs.

That's understandable, but wrong.
Women don't have "cheaper stuff", and the very few social programs you're talking about are just only meant to address exisisting inequalities.

[Crysuko]

a lot of guys are white knights thanks to their male mother need. as long as they don't drag me along, I'll be fine. course if I had all the power over society, everyone who'd wanna be a citizen would have the same rights and responsibilities to the letter. and anyone who complained would have to watch The Room for a week straight.

Oh, don't worry.
Nobody will force you to marry.
With empowerment, women wil need husbands less and lesser, and the males who will wish marry or having long-term relationships will have to have higher standards and to behave in a better way.
On the other hand, with the proliferation and the extension of yes-means-yes-like laws, males will have to be very careful and polite even during one-night-stands and the likes, so I guess that we'll see some famous PUAs in jail in the future.
And, of course, sooner or later, almost everywhere prostitution will be regulated by the Nordic Model. in Europe that's sure, since EU Parliament voted it as policy for all Europe, on February 2014.

Honestly, i'd pay to see a few PUAs thrown in the can. bunch of smug dirtbags.

[Geilinor]

No, it doesn't. Most feminists believe first of all in the ability of women to make choices.

[The Liberated Territories]

I thought its already established that any radical movement whether it be leftist or right wing, will continue to try justify its existence by fear mongering.

Really now? Where's your "evidence" of such a vague claim?

Antifa and fascists act a lot like each other.

[Haktiva]

I would argue that feminism is good for men in that it's shock to the system. women are no longer bound to their traditional roles, so neither are we men. that being said, women can pay for their own shit. I don't wanna pay for anything I won't benefit from. I don't benefit by women having cheaper stuff and their own social programs.

That's understandable, but wrong.
Women don't have "cheaper stuff", and the very few social programs you're talking about are just only meant to address exisisting inequalities.

if we're talking about the wage gap, then they should work full time more and take less benefits in exchange for more pay