The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Aelex]

I cannot answer because the very definition of Feminism prevent such switching: advocating for women's rights and women's empowerment on the ground of equality to males means such switching is impossible. Also, it wouldn't work at all if situation wouldn't be unbalanced against women.

In what? I mean, what happen once the patriarchy had been over-throwed? What do we do?
Because, you had won rights for the women but denied men access to them, so we basically end up with the women on top (no joke here ) and a reverse situation where since the women are more empowered then the men, they create a matriarchy after destructing the patriarchy.
Feminism as a movement in the Western World isn't needed anymore. We need egaliterianism.

[Haktiva]

to be fair most of this is just gynocentrism we see in tradcons too, but feminists are just the liberal end of the spectrum.

usually it's in the form of getting their birth control paid for, the fact that most women just have to scream and guys will come to help, girls get affirmative action and gender quotas while guys don't, and pretty much any accusation of a woman being sexually assaulted will bring out a veritable lynchmob.

men don't get that on average, not nearly in comparison to women.

It's not "their birth control": it's birth control of everyone, since childs are made by both men and women. A counter-example: even women buy condoms, for birth control and for their health, and even women have to pay for condoms.
Affirmative action and gender quotas are need to bring more women in places where women are far less than men: it's exactly the difference between "taking away rights" and "taking away privileges". Men have the right to run for the government, and to be elected, and to vote, and women have too. But in USA men are something like more than 80% (I don't remember the exact number - in UK it's actually 71%) and that's why gender quotas are need. A counter-example: in Sweden the idea of gender quotas for women within government have been substantially dropped, for a good reason: women are 45% of the Parliament, it's not totally fair, it should be around 50%, but it doesn't matter so much as long as both genders are at least 40%, some flexibility is not so bad, I think.
Just only 3% of rapists spend some time within a jail.

Then how come I never see anyone griping about guys never getting their hands on free birth control. also as someone who advocates for artificial womb tech, I find the feminists viewpoint on it hilarious

why do we need more women in certain fields? I believe in a meritocracy and if a woman has good points she should't have to have the government force a company to hire her. I don't think the government should have hiring quotas either because that doesn't guarantee the best person for the job. Also, where the fuck is the UN Men's Issues thing?

Care to show me the statistics on that one?

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminists seem to be pretty organized when it comes to preventing men gaining rights though.

[citation needed]

Well theres thousands of examples i could use.
I'll just use the ones I saw earlier today though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... societies/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... eties.html

NOW opposing shared parenting is a pretty big one too.

Theres all the times feminists show up to protest a mens group being founded.

Their hatred for the Canadian association for equality, or CAFE. (Big red.)

Basically yeh. You clearly don't actually look out for mens issues, or you would know why feminists are a problem.

[Chessmistress]

why do we need more women in certain fields?

Equality. Feminism is all about equality.

[Aelex]

Equality. Feminism is all about equality.

No. Feminism is about giving to the women more power. Not to acheive equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

to be fair most of this is just gynocentrism we see in tradcons too, but feminists are just the liberal end of the spectrum.

usually it's in the form of getting their birth control paid for, the fact that most women just have to scream and guys will come to help, girls get affirmative action and gender quotas while guys don't, and pretty much any accusation of a woman being sexually assaulted will bring out a veritable lynchmob.

men don't get that on average, not nearly in comparison to women.

It's not "their birth control": it's birth control of everyone, since childs are made by both men and women. A counter-example: even women buy condoms, for birth control and for their health, and even women have to pay for condoms.
Affirmative action and gender quotas are need to bring more women in places where women are far less than men: it's exactly the difference between "taking away rights" and "taking away privileges". Men have the right to run for the government, and to be elected, and to vote, and women have too. But in USA men are something like more than 80% (I don't remember the exact number - in UK it's actually 71%) and that's why gender quotas are need. A counter-example: in Sweden the idea of gender quotas for women within government have been substantially dropped, for a good reason: women are 45% of the Parliament, it's not totally fair, it should be around 50%, but it doesn't matter so much as long as both genders are at least 40%, some flexibility is not so bad, I think.
Just only 3% of rapists spend some time within a jail.

Men run for government more than women do. Why should there be a quota? Why not just encourage women to run. Are women not capable of being ambitious and risking something unless it's guaranteed for them?

As for rapists in jail, citation on that figure.
But further, women rape men and are even less likely to be jailed for it.

[New Piscea]

why do we need more women in certain fields?

Equality. Feminism is all about equality.

Nope women , its all about women

[Haktiva]

why do we need more women in certain fields?

Equality. Feminism is all about equality.

i edited my post, and i still don't see how gender quotas achieve equality

[Ostroeuropa]

why do we need more women in certain fields?

Equality. Feminism is all about equality.

Presumably you also support quotas in teaching, social work, nursing, etc, but for men.

Well then, how about you stop focusing on women so much and just push for a law saying all fields must hire at least 30 or 40%?
Because otherwise you just seem disingenuous.

Which, frankly, I think you all are.

[Wallenburg]

[citation needed]

Well theres thousands of examples i could use.
I'll just use the ones I saw earlier today though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... societies/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... eties.html

NOW opposing shared parenting is a pretty big one too.

Theres all the times feminists show up to protest a mens group being founded.

Their hatred for the Canadian association for equality, or CAFE. (Big red.)

Basically yeh. You clearly don't actually look out for mens issues, or you would know why feminists are a problem.

A reddit page for androcentrists isn't what I would call credible. With the Telegraph article, I side entirely with the male student here.

[Wallenburg]

Equality. Feminism is all about equality.

No. Feminism is about giving to the women more power. Not to acheive equality.

Your feminism and my feminism are irreconcilable.

[Chessmistress]

[citation needed]

Well theres thousands of examples i could use.
I'll just use the ones I saw earlier today though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... societies/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... eties.html

NOW opposing shared parenting is a pretty big one too.

Theres all the times feminists show up to protest a mens group being founded.

Their hatred for the Canadian association for equality, or CAFE. (Big red.)

Basically yeh. You clearly don't actually look out for mens issues, or you would know why feminists are a problem.

I don't take reddit seriously, but the telegraph is just another thing.

“But it was rejected by [Durham's] Societies Committee; they said it was 'controversial' – and that my aims were 'too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]'. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.

It's not Feminists, it's Durham's Societies Committee that is blocking them.

“To show why, I went through the Fem Soc policy documents, where it specifically says, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men'.

"Feminism exists for women" - it's EXACTLY what I always wrote, I agree with the policy of Fem Soc.
As feminist I do not oppose a Durham University Male Human Rights Society, why I should?
It's a problem with Durham's Societies Committee.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well theres thousands of examples i could use.
I'll just use the ones I saw earlier today though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... societies/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... eties.html

NOW opposing shared parenting is a pretty big one too.

Theres all the times feminists show up to protest a mens group being founded.

Their hatred for the Canadian association for equality, or CAFE. (Big red.)

Basically yeh. You clearly don't actually look out for mens issues, or you would know why feminists are a problem.

A reddit page for androcentrists isn't what I would call credible. With the Telegraph article, I side entirely with the male student here.

The reddit page deals with commentary on the telegraph article.
I'm glad you side with the mens rights movement. You'll notice, if you bothered to read the reddit thread, that he posts there frequently and explains his distancing from the MRA as a last ditch effort to get the club going. It still didn't work.
He is an MRA.

So you side with the androcentrists.
Funny how you aren't capable of seeing the difference between an "Androcentrist" and equality if that "Androcentrist" says he isn't one.

Further, the fact you side with him does absolutely nothing to dispute my point.
Feminists are organized to oppose mens rights.
You sitting there doing f-all but being with us in spirit means absolutely nothing. In fact, here you are, going out of your way to defend the people who are preventing mens rights by pretending it has nothing to do with your movement. It does.
Feminists who are active are opposing mens rights. Inactive ones, such as yourself, are just in extreme denial over it and try and help the movement to save face. What you're doing is enabling these people to oppress men.

[Haktiva]

One thing I think is unfair to women is how tradcons blame feminists for "ruining them". It takes away women's agency, something they really need. But the popular narrative is men's hyper agency and women's hypoagnecy in any gynocentric thinking.

ah well. until the rest of humanity gets over gynocentrism

[Ostroeuropa]

Well theres thousands of examples i could use.
I'll just use the ones I saw earlier today though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... societies/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... eties.html

NOW opposing shared parenting is a pretty big one too.

Theres all the times feminists show up to protest a mens group being founded.

Their hatred for the Canadian association for equality, or CAFE. (Big red.)

Basically yeh. You clearly don't actually look out for mens issues, or you would know why feminists are a problem.

I don't take reddit seriously, but the telegraph is just another thing.

“But it was rejected by [Durham's] Societies Committee; they said it was 'controversial' – and that my aims were 'too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]'. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.

It's not Feminists, it's Durham's Societies Committee that is blocking them.

“To show why, I went through the Fem Soc policy documents, where it specifically says, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men'.

"Feminism exists for women" - it's EXACTLY what I always wrote, I agree with the policy of Fem Soc.
As feminist I do not oppose a Durham University Male Human Rights Society, why I should?
It's a problem with Durham's Societies Committee.

Are you denying that the Durham Committee, which is under the impression that feminism is for both genders, are feminists?
Where else would they get this ridiculous notion?

(I agree with you, by the way. Feminism is for women. All these feminists who run around pretending it's for both genders are actively preventing progress on mens issues.)

[Wallenburg]

Ostro, back away from the "all feminists are _____" shit. It will only end badly. It is specifically against forum AND topic rules.

[The Krogan]

I don't take reddit seriously, but the telegraph is just another thing.



It's not Feminists, it's Durham's Societies Committee that is blocking them.



"Feminism exists for women" - it's EXACTLY what I always wrote, I agree with the policy of Fem Soc.
As feminist I do not oppose a Durham University Male Human Rights Society, why I should?
It's a problem with Durham's Societies Committee.

Are you denying that the Durham Committee, which is under the impression that feminism is for both genders, are feminists?
Where else would they get this ridiculous notion?

(I agree with you, by the way. Feminism is for women. All these feminists who run around pretending it's for both genders are actively preventing progress on mens issues.)

I've been called a feminist and I'm a guy...

[Chessmistress]

Well theres thousands of examples i could use.
I'll just use the ones I saw earlier today though.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... societies/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... eties.html

NOW opposing shared parenting is a pretty big one too.

Theres all the times feminists show up to protest a mens group being founded.

Their hatred for the Canadian association for equality, or CAFE. (Big red.)

Basically yeh. You clearly don't actually look out for mens issues, or you would know why feminists are a problem.

A reddit page for androcentrists isn't what I would call credible. With the Telegraph article, I side entirely with the male student here.

Funny, almost exactly the same answer.
Personally, I think the only thing that can be damaging for males within Feminism, and I already wrote it multiple times, is that when some "feminists" says "we take care of males' issues too". That's not true for Fem Soc at Durham University, and here we can see the problem: since Durham University buys that thing of "we take care of males' issues too" they're negating a right to males. But it's Durham University that is negating it, not Feminists.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostro, back away from the "all feminists are _____" shit. It will only end badly. It is specifically against forum AND topic rules.

If you think i've broken the rules, go report it. Don't post about it to me. As far as i'm aware, topic rules aren't a thing. Further, "All these feminists who" disqualifies it from an "All these feminists are." it's specifically referencing a subset.

[Ostroeuropa]

A reddit page for androcentrists isn't what I would call credible. With the Telegraph article, I side entirely with the male student here.

Funny, almost exactly the same answer.
Personally, I think the only thing that can be damaging for males within Feminism, and I already wrote it multiple times, is that when some "feminists" says "we take care of males' issues too". That's not true for Fem Soc at Durham University, and here we can see the problem: since Durham University buys that thing of "we take care of males' issues too" they're negating a right to males. But it's Durham University that is negating it, not Feminists.

I would argue that it's the result of those feminists who keep saying feminism is addressing mens issues too. They should cut that shit out.

[Wallenburg]

Ostro, back away from the "all feminists are _____" shit. It will only end badly. It is specifically against forum AND topic rules.

If you think i've broken the rules, go report it. Don't post about it to me. As far as i'm aware, topic rules aren't a thing. Further, "All these feminists who" disqualifies it from an "All these feminists are." it's specifically referencing a subset.

You've told me to report you before. And when I did, you claimed I was using the mods as a weapon to silence your speech. So just to be sure: do you REALLY want me to take this to Moderation, or are you just dodging me here?

[Aelex]

Your feminism and my feminism are irreconcilable.

If you're for equality between gender, you're an egalitarian. Not a feminist.

[Chessmistress]

Are you denying that the Durham Committee, which is under the impression that feminism is for both genders, are feminists?
Where else would they get this ridiculous notion?

(I agree with you, by the way. Feminism is for women. All these feminists who run around pretending it's for both genders are actively preventing progress on mens issues.)

Quite the opposite: I'm SURE that, since Durham Committee is under the impression that feminism is for both genders, they are NOT feminists! See our OP: "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to males". It's not about males' issues! That's why I don't wish males calling themselves "feminists" but "allies": it's just a matter of honesty!
And Fem Soc at Durham have exactly the same notion I have: "Feminism exists for women".
Even Emma Watson called men to help women, there's no such thing as "She for He" (that would be really ludicrous )
See? Your problem is not Radical Feminism, your problem are people I label "feminists" (with quotation marks).

[Wallenburg]

Your feminism and my feminism are irreconcilable.

If you're for equality between gender, you're an egalitarian. Not a feminist.

Go read up on the definition of feminism. You'll be surprised.

[Kelinfort]

Question: do you agree there's patriarchy and male privilege?
Male privilege = women have it worse (on the whole) = feminism is needed.
Do you agree wiith that?

I don't know what is a "typical" feminist: there are too many kinds of feminism around the world.
For the standards of some European nations, yes, I'm a typical Radical Feminist.

I don't think I'm always right: this thread is meant to confronting different visions about how the goals of feminism (that are common to all kinds of feminism) should be pursued. If other feminists disagree with me, they should explain why, not being silent.



???
I always answered to you: you're my preferred anti-feminist, the only anti-feminist in my list of friends...

I'm not an anti-feminist. I am opposed to your form of feminism, as it's merely traditionalism cloaked in the old ideals of womanhood and purity. When you remove female agency from their decisions and autonomy, it's obvious you want other women to conform to your standards of feminism.

But, I digress. You haven't responded to my posts multiple times. That's fine, I don't respond to every post I read or people send to me. I was just telling Tahar that outlining this is just a waste of time. My original post I referenced was the fact my female partner enjoys consuming different types of pornographic material and questioning why you believe women cannot or do not enjoy and indulge their sexual needs.

I find it funny people on here just love to accuse me of various things depending on their beliefs. You accuse me of being an anti-feminist, Ostro accuses me of being gynocentric, etc. I support aspects of feminism and the MRM, but I prefer my actions and my behaviour determines my identity, not a term.