Criticisms of Feminism

[Jormengand]

I'm assuming that we're using the original definition of feminism, but thanks I guess.

How would you define feminism and on what basis do you claim it is the original definition, further, i'd like you to explain whether this forthcoming definition would include Mens Rights Activists under its umbrella.

This has been expounded on both above and below this post, all around you, even now. Perhaps reading the thread would avail you in this regard.

[Ostroeuropa]

No. Feminism is inherently opposed to misandry. Or do you not know how to look up a definition?

Exactly. Misandry is as fundamentally incompatible with feminism as misogyny is. To claim to be a feminist supporter of misandry is to claim to be a contradiction.

A proof by definition is the strongest form of proof in logic.

A definition none of you have supplied and I have, as well as explained why you are wrong about misandry not being compatible with feminism. Even misogyny is.
I guess that proof by definition is the strongest proof going and you'll concede now, right?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No. Feminism is inherently opposed to misandry. Or do you not know how to look up a definition?

I've looked up the definition.
Have you?

the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Nowhere does this deal with misandry or mens rights.
It also doesn't require someone believe in equality.

Only that they use equality as an excuse or rationale to advance womens rights.
Sounds pretty much dead on target.
It also doesn't exclude them from being a misandrist, which they very often are.

The nature of the advocacy they employ is frequently misandrist, as are the proposed solutions, their proposed causes of the issues, and their issue focus.

"on the grounds of equality of the sexes"

thx for proving my point

[Networked Brains]

I think a big trap in this debate is that of "definitions"-- everyone, on both sides, wants to assert their own definition of Feminism as authentic or "true", but the problem is that definitions are not static, so trying to pin them down for longer than a few moments is always destined to fail.

The solution is to stop arguing about definitions.

[Ostroeuropa]

How would you define feminism and on what basis do you claim it is the original definition, further, i'd like you to explain whether this forthcoming definition would include Mens Rights Activists under its umbrella.

This has been expounded on both above and below this post, all around you, even now. Perhaps reading the thread would avail you in this regard.

Not really. You just keep insisting it's the definition without providing one to counter the definition I actually provided.
This is you dodging the question.

If you insist that feminism is simply the belief in equality of the sexes (Something that you havn't actually grabbed a definition to prove), then do you consider MRA's feminists?
That question is directed at you personally, and I don't actually consider it likely you've answered it previously in the thread. Maybe i'm wrong.
I'd also appreciate you actually finding the definition.
You've made a claim. Source it.

[Chessmistress]

Worth noting that in spite of feminist insistence that mens problems stem from the patriarchy, mens suicide rates are increasing, their education standards are falling etc, despite feminist victories for women.
Surely we'd see mens problems lessening if their ideology had any basis in reality...

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

If the paradigm of an oppressive patriarchy that has always favoured men at the expense of oppressing women is 'true' - we'd expect men's problems to get worse, not better. Because the oppressed class is no longer as easy a target, and so the men are less favoured.

By trying to link increasing male suicidal behaviour with the feminist movement (rather than allowing it might not be related, or might correlate with, rather than being caused by, feminism) - you're actually providing evidence that the feminist 'patriarchy' target is real.

Exactly.
As I already wrote multiple times, more and more true equality will be approached, more and more males will suffer, due they're losing their privileges. The issues of males will be fixed at the right time, almost automatically, with the fall of patriarchy. But NOT before the historically oppressed gender, WOMEN, will have its full rights.
That's exactly why Radical Feminists will NEVER allow males to have positions of power within the movement, and nor even to call themselves "feminists" but just only "allies".
I want to point out that and made it very clear, because that's the thread about Feminism and its principles: Feminism, at least Radical Feminism, is not a walk in a garden, nor a way to get laid.
It's a struggle against patriarchy, for women's rights and women's empowerment.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've looked up the definition.
Have you?



Nowhere does this deal with misandry or mens rights.
It also doesn't require someone believe in equality.

Only that they use equality as an excuse or rationale to advance womens rights.
Sounds pretty much dead on target.
It also doesn't exclude them from being a misandrist, which they very often are.

The nature of the advocacy they employ is frequently misandrist, as are the proposed solutions, their proposed causes of the issues, and their issue focus.

"on the grounds of equality of the sexes"

thx for proving my point

I pretty much disproved your point in that post.

I can advocate for a ban on gay marriage on the grounds of the AIDS virus. But that doesn't actually mean that's my motive.
Only that it provides a convenient excuse.
it could be that i'm just using it to get what I want. (Note, I am pro gay marriage.)

All that feminism requires is that you advocate for womens rights while using egalitarian rationales.
Notice you cannot advocate for mens rights the same way. Only womens.

This is why feminism is a terrible movement.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

This has been expounded on both above and below this post, all around you, even now. Perhaps reading the thread would avail you in this regard.

Not really. You just keep insisting it's the definition without providing one to counter the definition I actually provided.
This is you dodging the question.

If you insist that feminism is simply the belief in equality of the sexes (Something that you havn't actually grabbed a definition to prove), then do you consider MRA's feminists?
That question is directed at you personally, and I don't actually consider it likely you've answered it previously in the thread. Maybe i'm wrong.
I'd also appreciate you actually finding the definition.
You've made a claim. Source it.

Your argument is based on wordplay and collapses under the light of deconstruction. What defines anything? What defines the signifiers that make up that definition? What makes those definitions reliable?

[Jormengand]

patriarchy

Doesn't exist. Next?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Exactly. Misandry is as fundamentally incompatible with feminism as misogyny is. To claim to be a feminist supporter of misandry is to claim to be a contradiction.

A proof by definition is the strongest form of proof in logic.

Could you please outline exactly how feminism inherently excludes the idea that men are bad or that women are better than men? Not just your preferred path of feminism, but the idea of feminism itself?

[Ostroeuropa]

Not really. You just keep insisting it's the definition without providing one to counter the definition I actually provided.
This is you dodging the question.

If you insist that feminism is simply the belief in equality of the sexes (Something that you havn't actually grabbed a definition to prove), then do you consider MRA's feminists?
That question is directed at you personally, and I don't actually consider it likely you've answered it previously in the thread. Maybe i'm wrong.
I'd also appreciate you actually finding the definition.
You've made a claim. Source it.

Your argument is based on wordplay and collapses under the light of deconstruction. What defines anything? What defines the signifiers that make up that definition? What makes those definitions reliable?

Well so long as we're arguing that, i'll point out that polls indicate a large majority of people support equality of the sexes, and a small minority identify as feminist.
So clearly, the definition of feminist is not someone who believes in equality of the sexes, if you allow popular word usage to define words.
If you go by the authority model, then again, feminist doesn't mean someone who believes in equality of the sexes, but rather someone who uses equality of the sexes as their weapon to advance womens rights.
They can believe in it, or they might not.

(Poll http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 94917.html )

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

If you go by the authority model, then again, feminist doesn't mean someone who believes in equality of the sexes, but rather someone who uses equality of the sexes as their weapon to advance womens rights.
They can believe in it, or they might not.

Ostro, you're distorting what 'on the grounds of' means.

Someone who opposed censorship on the grounds of free speech is not using free speech as a weapon or an excuse.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you go by the authority model, then again, feminist doesn't mean someone who believes in equality of the sexes, but rather someone who uses equality of the sexes as their weapon to advance womens rights.
They can believe in it, or they might not.

Ostro, you're distorting what 'on the grounds of' means.

Someone who opposed censorship on the grounds of free speech is not using free speech as a weapon or an excuse.

No, but someone who advocates for something on the grounds of something could be using it as a weapon or excuse.
I'm not denying some might actually believe it, only that it doesn't exclude not believing in it.

For instance, a lot of politicians will in fact get up and ramble about free speech when it suits them, then turn around and advocate censorship later on on a different issue.
Nonetheless, they previously advocated against censorship on the grounds of free speech.

[Tekania]

No. Feminism is inherently opposed to misandry. Or do you not know how to look up a definition?

Exactly. Misandry is as fundamentally incompatible with feminism as misogyny is. To claim to be a feminist supporter of misandry is to claim to be a contradiction.

A proof by definition is the strongest form of proof in logic.

The broader definition of feminism can indeed include misandrous positions.... You're not really arguing by THE definition, you're arguing by A definition while ignoring the larger meaning of the term to engage in no-true-scottsman fallacy.

But feel free to keep lying to yourself and everyone else.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Exactly. Misandry is as fundamentally incompatible with feminism as misogyny is. To claim to be a feminist supporter of misandry is to claim to be a contradiction.

A proof by definition is the strongest form of proof in logic.

The broader definition of feminism can indeed include misandrous positions.... You're not really arguing by THE definition, you're arguing by A definition while ignoring the larger meaning of the term to engage in no-true-scottsman fallacy.

But feel free to keep lying to yourself and everyone else.

"A" definition that happens to be the only one accepted by the fucking dictionary.

But yeah, feel free to keep distorting facts and making shit up.

[Nierra]

.........Is this a joke?

No. Feminism is inherently opposed to misandry. Or do you not know how to look up a definition?

No way, I'm just going off on the fact that a very large amount of feminists are misandrist.

A movement isn't defined by Merriam Webster, it's defined by the people who move it. The image of feminism has for the most part been irreligious white women who don't really know anything about the equality they want, the vast majority of whom would tell you the reason why they're a feminist being based off of a misconception or statistical falsehood.

Women are already equal as far as society can adequately address through its laws and legal systems.

Depending the cultural question however, I can tell you that men are shunned extremely heavily while expressing sexist opinions, and the encouragement of rape, bullying, and stomping upon women is in no way shape or form the societal norm. Like, at all.

Men in society are encouraged to be chivalrous, open-minded, and accepting rather than snotty or brutish. Women for the most part drive relationships, own the court, and dominate higher education. Men and women are different, the societal norms "oppressing" women are merely a reflection of natural feminine traits or masculine traits. Like this o so terrible thing called care taking.

Most statistics feminists spew out are false, and feminism has in no way shape or form empowered men. Two major reasons why everyone bashes it, because they are based upon nothing but unproven assumptions and in no way encourage male involvement. They expect men to cheer-lead for them, but they don't want an open forum because of course us being men cannot possibly understand women so we have 0 say.

You either support feminism absolutely or you're misogynist right?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No. Feminism is inherently opposed to misandry. Or do you not know how to look up a definition?

No way, I'm just going off on the fact that a very large amount of feminists are misandrist.

A movement isn't defined by Merriam Webster, it's defined by the people who move it. The image of feminism has for the most part been irreligious white women who don't really know anything about the equality they want, the vast majority of whom would tell you the reason why they're a feminist being based off of a misconception or statistical falsehood.

Women are already equal as far as society can adequately address through its laws and legal systems.

Depending the cultural question however, I can tell you that men are shunned extremely heavily while expressing sexist opinions, and the encouragement of rape, bullying, and stomping upon women is in no way shape or form the societal norm. Like, at all.

Men in society are encouraged to be chivalrous, open-minded, and accepting rather than snotty or brutish. Women for the most part drive relationships, own the court, and dominate higher education. Men and women are different, the societal norms "oppressing" women are merely a reflection of natural feminine traits or masculine traits. Like this o so terrible thing called care taking.

Most statistics feminists spew out are false, and feminism has in no way shape or form empowered men. Two major reasons why everyone bashes it, because they are based upon nothing but unproven assumptions and in no way encourage male involvement. They expect men to cheer-lead for them, but they don't want an open forum because of course us being men cannot possibly understand women so we have 0 say.

You either support feminism absolutely or you're misogynist right?

Since your first statement was bullshit that's all I'm going to address, because I don't feel like reading through your paragraphs of idiotic distortion of basic facts.

If you're a misandrist, you aren't a feminist. If you're a misogynist, you aren't a feminist. Feminism is gender equality. If you are not a feminist, you are either a male or female chauvinist. That's how it works.

[Nierra]

In fact isn't it also a double standard that a feminist is considered an advocate for both sexes, while a masculinist is a person seeking the dominance of males?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

In fact isn't it also a double standard that a feminist is considered an advocate for both sexes, while a masculinist is a person seeking the dominance of males?

It's funny how people say this shit. It makes it patently obvious that you don't realize females are still disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society, which means you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Makes it easier for the rest of us.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

patriarchy

Doesn't exist. Next?

The mere existence of a binary opposition between genders inevitably leads to one of the binary terms being privileged. The structures and institutions which maintain this binary opposition are known as the patriarchy.

[Ostroeuropa]

In fact isn't it also a double standard that a feminist is considered an advocate for both sexes, while a masculinist is a person seeking the dominance of males?

It's funny how people say this shit. It makes it patently obvious that you don't realize females are still disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society, which means you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Makes it easier for the rest of us.

Are you denying that males are disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society?

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

It's funny how people say this shit. It makes it patently obvious that you don't realize females are still disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society, which means you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Makes it easier for the rest of us.

Are you denying that males are disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society?

Observing the oppression of women does not inherently deny the oppression of men in other regards.

[Jormengand]

Doesn't exist. Next?

The mere existence of a binary opposition between genders inevitably leads to one of the binary terms being privileged. The structures and institutions which maintain this binary opposition are known as the patriarchy.

It's not a one-way thing. You obtain one set of privilege for being male and a different set of privileges (such as actually having discrimination against you taken seriously, in the first instance) for being female.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's funny how people say this shit. It makes it patently obvious that you don't realize females are still disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society, which means you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Makes it easier for the rest of us.

Are you denying that males are disadvantaged and discriminated against in today's society?

Patriarchal society can work against them in certain, particular ways, like with emotional expression. But females are still effectively a lower class of citizen.

[Nierra]

No way, I'm just going off on the fact that a very large amount of feminists are misandrist.

A movement isn't defined by Merriam Webster, it's defined by the people who move it. The image of feminism has for the most part been irreligious white women who don't really know anything about the equality they want, the vast majority of whom would tell you the reason why they're a feminist being based off of a misconception or statistical falsehood.

Women are already equal as far as society can adequately address through its laws and legal systems.

Depending the cultural question however, I can tell you that men are shunned extremely heavily while expressing sexist opinions, and the encouragement of rape, bullying, and stomping upon women is in no way shape or form the societal norm. Like, at all.

Men in society are encouraged to be chivalrous, open-minded, and accepting rather than snotty or brutish. Women for the most part drive relationships, own the court, and dominate higher education. Men and women are different, the societal norms "oppressing" women are merely a reflection of natural feminine traits or masculine traits. Like this o so terrible thing called care taking.

Most statistics feminists spew out are false, and feminism has in no way shape or form empowered men. Two major reasons why everyone bashes it, because they are based upon nothing but unproven assumptions and in no way encourage male involvement. They expect men to cheer-lead for them, but they don't want an open forum because of course us being men cannot possibly understand women so we have 0 say.

You either support feminism absolutely or you're misogynist right?

Since your first statement was bullshit that's all I'm going to address, because I don't feel like reading through your paragraphs of idiotic distortion of basic facts.

If you're a misandrist, you aren't a feminist. If you're a misogynist, you aren't a feminist. Feminism is gender equality. If you are not a feminist, you are either a male or female chauvinist. That's how it works.

Looks like you just removed a huge chunk of your supporting base then.

Also the fact that you threw men in there is pretty funny and actually enforces the argument against feminism.

If men are not motivated and actively involved in promoting feminism in the same way women are you've effectively just established that it isn't about equality of the sexes.

Also congrats on not reading any opinions other than the ones you pick and choose and decide to address in a very one minded and unaccepting way. Typical of feminists to be sure, that's probably why they're failing as a social movement.

It isn't because society hates you and is incredibly patriarchal and hetero normative, as the success of the LGBT movement indicates the opposite.