Feminism in decline

[Wallenburg]

i agree wholeheartedly, but I believe you judge that on an individual basis, and not by assuming that each feminist is only pro-Woman if they say otherwise.

@Osteo I'm on a phone right now and can't type out a lengthy response. But dont think ive forgotten about you!

I might be in bed, but i'll get around to responding eventually.
As for assumptions about my flag, it's a show with female protagonists. My sig also has a female protagonist. (My favorite fictional character, as it happens.).
For a variety of reasons, I tend to prefer female protagonists to male ones. It's worth noting that this provides a convinient example of sexism for the andro/gyno dichotomy. People tend to assume I must find the characters sexually or romantically appealing.
From a gynocentric perspective, this implies that women only have worth as romantic partners and aren't worth respecting in their own right as inspirational figures. From an androcentric perspective, it implies that men rank sexual or romantic appeal over personality and badassitude(tm) when it comes to deciding who they like as a fictional character, and reinforces the usual stereotypes about men being sex crazed.

I consider it less an issue of sexism than an issue of bronyism.

[Natapoc]

i agree wholeheartedly, but I believe you judge that on an individual basis, and not by assuming that each feminist is only pro-Woman if they say otherwise.

Indeed. At that point if what you're scrutinizing is a movement rather than a person, though, you have to start looking at statistics and patterns. There are a few important questions to be asked, I think, to establish whether feminism is advocating for men's rights as well as women's.

1: Does the average feminist advocate for men's issues when they come up?
2: When men's issues come up in society, are feminists stepping up to the plate to advocate for them? Or possibly to obstruct them?
3: To what degree does the rhetoric employed by the feminist movement enable and encourage advocating for solutions to men's issues? To what degree does it obstruct and deligitimize such advocacy?

1. Yes.
2. Yes I find that feminists are usually very quick to advocate for men in those cases where men are harmed by gender roles for example.
3. Feminism in no way obstructs advocacy of mens issues. Yes feminists advocate on behalf of both men and women.

Feminism obstructs advocacy of sexism.

[New Edom]

Indeed. At that point if what you're scrutinizing is a movement rather than a person, though, you have to start looking at statistics and patterns. There are a few important questions to be asked, I think, to establish whether feminism is advocating for men's rights as well as women's.

1: Does the average feminist advocate for men's issues when they come up?
2: When men's issues come up in society, are feminists stepping up to the plate to advocate for them? Or possibly to obstruct them?
3: To what degree does the rhetoric employed by the feminist movement enable and encourage advocating for solutions to men's issues? To what degree does it obstruct and deligitimize such advocacy?

1. Yes.
2. Yes I find that feminists are usually very quick to advocate for men in those cases where men are harmed by gender roles for example.
3. Feminism in no way obstructs advocacy of mens issues. Yes feminists advocate on behalf of both men and women.

Feminism obstructs advocacy of sexism.

Well what about these examples?

http://site.nomas.org/not-a-two-way-street-men-are-not-the-victims-of-what-is-meant-by-domestic-violence-and-abuse/

and this?

http://feministcurrent.com/7661/this-thing-about-male-victims/

These are just two examples, but I'd like to also share this one from Everyday Feminism which presents the notion that feminism ought to address child abuse better--implying that it is not to begin with and that a kind of Hail Mary assumption exists on the part of women that makes it harder to identify abusive behaviour in women.

So this suggests that in fact feminism is not doing enough for men, and that the general issue of men's rights is a contentious one within feminism. This shouldn't be the end of the world, but can just be seen as an issue to be discussed and addressed.

[Galloism]

Indeed. At that point if what you're scrutinizing is a movement rather than a person, though, you have to start looking at statistics and patterns. There are a few important questions to be asked, I think, to establish whether feminism is advocating for men's rights as well as women's.

1: Does the average feminist advocate for men's issues when they come up?
2: When men's issues come up in society, are feminists stepping up to the plate to advocate for them? Or possibly to obstruct them?
3: To what degree does the rhetoric employed by the feminist movement enable and encourage advocating for solutions to men's issues? To what degree does it obstruct and deligitimize such advocacy?

1. Yes.
2. Yes I find that feminists are usually very quick to advocate for men in those cases where men are harmed by gender roles for example.
3. Feminism in no way obstructs advocacy of mens issues. Yes feminists advocate on behalf of both men and women.

Feminism obstructs advocacy of sexism.

Some feminists, you mean.

Let's keep in mind that radical feminists actively opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, and sought to preserve the legally allowable victimization of underage boys. Liberal feminists won the day, fortunately.

[Natapoc]

1. Yes.
2. Yes I find that feminists are usually very quick to advocate for men in those cases where men are harmed by gender roles for example.
3. Feminism in no way obstructs advocacy of mens issues. Yes feminists advocate on behalf of both men and women.

Feminism obstructs advocacy of sexism.

Some feminists, you mean.

Let's keep in mind that radical feminists actively opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, and sought to preserve the legally allowable victimization of underage boys. Liberal feminists won the day, fortunately.

So what you are saying is feminists care about these issues and made the right choice after much deliberation (evaluating the complexities of the situation given that we still live in patriarchy) to protect boys.

Yes I agree. Exactly as I said.

[Galloism]

Some feminists, you mean.

Let's keep in mind that radical feminists actively opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, and sought to preserve the legally allowable victimization of underage boys. Liberal feminists won the day, fortunately.

So what you are saying is feminists care about these issues and made the right choice after much deliberation (evaluating the complexities of the situation given that we still live in patriarchy) to protect boys.

Yes I agree. Exactly as I said.

Liberal feminists had the political clout at that time, fortunately.

Radical feminists fought against equality, vigorously. I have very little evidence that radical feminists, as a group, have changed their tune either. I've not heard any talking about the issue in a long time.

[Natapoc]

So what you are saying is feminists care about these issues and made the right choice after much deliberation (evaluating the complexities of the situation given that we still live in patriarchy) to protect boys.

Yes I agree. Exactly as I said.

Liberal feminists had the political clout at that time, fortunately.

Radical feminists fought against equality, vigorously. I have very little evidence that radical feminists, as a group, have changed their tune either. I've not heard any talking about the issue in a long time.

Yes and conservative or religious feminists often fight vigorously against abortion rights. But the right to an legal safe abortion is still upheld as something feminists support and work for.

[Galloism]

Liberal feminists had the political clout at that time, fortunately.

Radical feminists fought against equality, vigorously. I have very little evidence that radical feminists, as a group, have changed their tune either. I've not heard any talking about the issue in a long time.

Yes and conservative or religious feminists often fight vigorously against abortion rights. But the right to an legal safe abortion is still upheld as something feminists support and work for.

Which is why you should use the term "some feminists" if only some feminists actually fight for equal rights. It's quite simply false to say "feminists support equal rights" when there are a plethora of examples of feminists opposing equal rights. You cannot deny this evidence exists in mass quantity.

It's like saying Democrats support more gun control. Certain some do, but there's plenty who don't. You're making a generalization that isn't true about a very diverse group.

[Natapoc]

Yes and conservative or religious feminists often fight vigorously against abortion rights. But the right to an legal safe abortion is still upheld as something feminists support and work for.

Which is why you should use the term "some feminists" if only some feminists actually fight for equal rights. It's quite simply false to say "feminists support equal rights" when there are a plethora of examples of feminists opposing equal rights. You cannot deny this evidence exists in mass quantity.

It's like saying Democrats support more gun control. Certain some do, but there's plenty who don't. You're making a generalization that isn't true about a very diverse group.

The problem with saying "some" in this way is that although technically correct it's like saying:

Some police aren't murderers.
Some men are not rapists.
Some white people are not robbers.

It's a backhanded way of implying that most actually are these things. Some Americans are not serial killers.
Why are Americans not doing enough about serial killings?

You can't tell me all Americans are against serial killings. I can give several examples of american serial killers.

[Galloism]

Which is why you should use the term "some feminists" if only some feminists actually fight for equal rights. It's quite simply false to say "feminists support equal rights" when there are a plethora of examples of feminists opposing equal rights. You cannot deny this evidence exists in mass quantity.

It's like saying Democrats support more gun control. Certain some do, but there's plenty who don't. You're making a generalization that isn't true about a very diverse group.

The problem with saying "some" in this way is that although technically correct it's like saying:

Some police aren't murderers.
Some men are not rapists.
Some white people are not robbers.

It's a backhanded way of implying that most actually are these things. Some Americans are not serial killers.
Why are Americans not doing enough about serial killings?

I'm happy if you want to use the word most instead. It may get challenged occasionally, especially as it pertains to mens issues, and you may have trouble proving greater than 50% support, but saying "feminists" without qualifiers when it comes to... well, almost anything really, is bound to be wrong.

[The Beast of Boston]

Thank Christ.

[Natapoc]

The problem with saying "some" in this way is that although technically correct it's like saying:

Some police aren't murderers.
Some men are not rapists.
Some white people are not robbers.

It's a backhanded way of implying that most actually are these things. Some Americans are not serial killers.
Why are Americans not doing enough about serial killings?

I'm happy if you want to use the word most instead. It may get challenged occasionally, especially as it pertains to mens issues, and you may have trouble proving greater than 50% support, but saying "feminists" without qualifiers when it comes to... well, almost anything really, is bound to be wrong.

So I have no source to back up the statement that most Americans are against murder. I've not seen one and I don't have the energy to try to find one or to fund a study that would arrive at that conclusion.

May I say that Americans are against murder? Should I be restricted to saying that just some Americans are against murder? Can I say that most Americans are against murder?

By the way, while we're playing this semantics derailment game... in my initial statement I never made a generic statement about "feminists" without qualifiers unless you count the very last phrase which could be interpreted to be that way if you decided to stretch it I suppose. Do you have any type of point?

[Galloism]

I'm happy if you want to use the word most instead. It may get challenged occasionally, especially as it pertains to mens issues, and you may have trouble proving greater than 50% support, but saying "feminists" without qualifiers when it comes to... well, almost anything really, is bound to be wrong.

So I have no source to back up the statement that most Americans are against murder. I've not seen one and I don't have the energy to try to find one or to fund a study that would arrive at that conclusion.

May I say that Americans are against murder? Should I be restricted to saying that just some Americans are against murder? Can I say that most Americans are against murder?

By the way, while we're playing this semantics derailment game... in my initial statement I never made a generic statement about "feminists" without qualifiers unless you count the very last phrase which could be interpreted to be that way if you decided to stretch it I suppose. Do you have any type of point?

You said feminists, without qualifiers, advocate on behalf of men's issues, and that feminism, without qualifiers, in no way obstructs advocacy of men's issues.

both of these statements are demonstrably false.

[New Edom]

1. Yes.
2. Yes I find that feminists are usually very quick to advocate for men in those cases where men are harmed by gender roles for example.
3. Feminism in no way obstructs advocacy of mens issues. Yes feminists advocate on behalf of both men and women.

Feminism obstructs advocacy of sexism.

Well what about these examples?

http://site.nomas.org/not-a-two-way-street-men-are-not-the-victims-of-what-is-meant-by-domestic-violence-and-abuse/

and this?

http://feministcurrent.com/7661/this-thing-about-male-victims/

These are just two examples, but I'd like to also share this one from Everyday Feminism which presents the notion that feminism ought to address child abuse better--implying that it is not to begin with and that a kind of Hail Mary assumption exists on the part of women that makes it harder to identify abusive behaviour in women.

So this suggests that in fact feminism is not doing enough for men, and that the general issue of men's rights is a contentious one within feminism. This shouldn't be the end of the world, but can just be seen as an issue to be discussed and addressed.

I'd like a response to this please.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'd like a response to this please.

I've had basically this conversation with Natapoc before a few times.

Each one of the following posts is a post to Natapoc in which I provide a specific example of an individual named feminist or feminist organization engaged in sexist behavior, with links and quotes. This means expressing sexist beliefs or endorsing sexist policy. RL feminists, too, not just potential troll / sockpuppets hiding behind anonymous handles.

1. <= Never replied.
2. <= Never replied
3. <= Claimed cited feminist(s) unknown to her and therefore unrepresentative.
4. <= Never replied.
5. <=Replied with outraged statement that did not address feminist sexism. After I called her out for changing the subject, claimed cited feminist(s) unknown to her and therefore unrepresentative.
6. <=Claimed cited feminist(s) unknown to her and therefore unrepresentative.
7. <= Replied indirectly with short statement that did not address feminist sexism.
8. <= Replied with short statement that did not address feminist sexism.

I was holding off while she thought about some of the things I said recently that she really hadn't addressed, since she said she was thinking about them. When I was searching those posts, here's most direct piece of evidence I saw Natapoc advance in favor of the claim that feminists aren't sexist: A feminist writer posting a pic article full of men holding up pictures about being raped. That's not very much considering the volume of discussion I just looked over.

It's really quite frustrating, but it seems to me like whenever Natapoc is confronted with evidence of sexism on the part of feminists, she closes it off as "not my feminism," then forgets about it. If she even attends to the evidence in the first place. And it doesn't really seem to matter if you step her through the evidence showing that whatever prominent feminist, feminist organization, et cetera she doesn't seem to be fully familiar with is indeed prominent and does indeed influence the feminist movement.

[Natapoc]

I'd like a response to this please.

I've had basically this conversation with Natapoc before a few times.

Each one of the following posts is a post to Natapoc in which I provide a specific example of an individual named feminist or feminist organization engaged in sexist behavior, with links and quotes. This means expressing sexist beliefs or endorsing sexist policy. RL feminists, too, not just potential troll / sockpuppets hiding behind anonymous handles.

1. <= Never replied.
2. <= Never replied
3. <= Claimed cited feminist(s) unknown to her and therefore unrepresentative.
4. <= Never replied.
5. <=Replied with outraged statement that did not address feminist sexism. After I called her out for changing the subject, claimed cited feminist(s) unknown to her and therefore unrepresentative.
6. <=Claimed cited feminist(s) unknown to her and therefore unrepresentative.
7. <= Replied indirectly with short statement that did not address feminist sexism.
8. <= Replied with short statement that did not address feminist sexism.

I was holding off while she thought about some of the things I said recently that she really hadn't addressed, since she said she was thinking about them. When I was searching those posts, here's most direct piece of evidence I saw Natapoc advance in favor of the claim that feminists aren't sexist: A feminist writer posting a pic article full of men holding up pictures about being raped. That's not very much considering the volume of discussion I just looked over.

It's really quite frustrating, but it seems to me like whenever Natapoc is confronted with evidence of sexism on the part of feminists, she closes it off as "not my feminism," then forgets about it. If she even attends to the evidence in the first place. And it doesn't really seem to matter if you step her through the evidence showing that whatever prominent feminist, feminist organization, et cetera she doesn't seem to be fully familiar with is indeed prominent and does indeed influence the feminist movement.

You seem to think I have some responsibility to explain the ideas and motivations of whatever individual you happen to be fixated on at the moment.

I have no such responsibility. In case you did not know, feminism is not a specific person or organization. It's simply an idea that women and men should be treated equally.

I do not need to apologize or explain the actions of anyone. Also I stopped posting in one of those threads due to the rampant rapist supporting.

Not even one MRA in that thread was willing to denounce it.

I only hold you responsible for your own beliefs and actions. I expect the same from you.


Here this may help you understand why I disengaged from that thread:

And since we are talking about education, lets educate everyone not to make false claims?

And the MRA movement shows their hateful side once more.

I won't post again in this thread until a self described MRA disagrees with you.

Hopefully one of the ones who were attracted to the mens rights movement because of their own rapes will come and show you why this is messed up. If not then nothing can be gained from discussion here.

Would you have me remind the men here who have said they were raped that it's important to avoid false rape claims? Go ahead and tell them yourself.

I'm still waiting for one of those MRA's who were posting in that thread to indicate that they have any empathy for male rape victims. Any feminist would quickly condemn what was said. Why do MRA's not care about rape victims (even male rape victims apparently)?

[Hirota]

I'm still waiting for one of those MRA's who were posting in that thread to indicate that they have any empathy for male rape victims. Any feminist would quickly condemn what was said. Why do MRA's not care about rape victims (even male rape victims apparently)?

I'm still waiting for you to apologise for calling me an MRA. But I'm not holding my breath, and unlike you I'm not going to hold a petty little grudge over it complete with faux outrage.

Nonetheless as a non-MRA I absolutely have empathy for any rape victims irrespective of gender. I also happen to have empathy for any victims of false reporting.

One could make the case that because you have communicated no sympathy for the victims of false rape claims you are a hateful person, and because you are a self-described feminist, one could easily hold you up as a strawman for the hateful side of Feminism. If I was to do that, I'd be as bad as you were.

I do not need to apologize or explain the actions of anyone. Also I stopped posting in one of those threads due to the rampant rapist supporting.

Which New Edom eloquently responded to and demonstrated that was untrue.

I only hold you responsible for your own beliefs and actions. I expect the same from you.

You are right, people should be held responsible for their own beliefs and actions, so why should an MRA be responsible for my (supposed) beliefs? Your hypocrisy is showing.

[Tahar Joblis]

You seem to think I have some responsibility to explain the ideas and motivations of whatever individual you happen to be fixated on at the moment.

I have no such responsibility. In case you did not know, feminism is not a specific person or organization.

Feminism is a movement. It is temporally, historically, socially, and ideologically located by that movement, as it exists in the real world.

Not...

It's simply an idea that women and men should be treated equally.

... as a vaguely stated notion that not even experts are willing to agree is the actual defining characteristic of feminism.

I do not need to apologize or explain the actions of anyone.

You don't need to apologize or explain for actions, unless you want to explain why the feminist movement, as it actually exists in the world, is somehow not sexist. In which case you are stuck with trying to explain how all these sexist actions and sexist statements emerge from feminist individuals and organizations, and to (somehow) disentangle them from the movement.

Also I stopped posting in one of those threads due to the rampant rapist supporting. Not even one MRA in that thread was willing to denounce it.

I already debunked that bullshit claim. So did others. Even were it true, though, it would not serve to defend feminism from the accusation which you have repeatedly insist is false.

You have claimed that feminism supports men's rights. I have shown to you, repeatedly, how feminism, a movement that exists in the real world, has, in fact fought against equal rights for men; and also shown to you, repeatedly, how feminism, as a movement that exists in the real world, numbers among its prominent members a large number of anti-male sexists.

Your response has been to alternately say you don't know anything about a very long list of feminists and feminist organizations, and manufacture various reasons for walking away from the argument... and then repeated the exact same assertions in the next thread. And now you're being called out on that behavior. You claimed that feminists (those are people who exist in the real world) are "usually very quick to advocate for men" and that feminism (a movement that exists in the real world) "in no way obstructs advocacy of mens issues."

You were provided with evidence against both of those claims. You were then asked to address that evidence. Then I called you out on a long pattern of ignoring evidence. You responded to that by still not addressing the evidence you were asked to address. So. Will you defend those claims with evidence of your own? Or will you simply make dogmatic assertions, and then walk off?

[New Edom]

Here's an irony. Feminism is the only ideology whose supposed moderates consistently respond as the above poster did. Christian moderates can admit to excesses and atrocities in the past and presents; Communists can admit the existence of Josef Stalin and Pol Pot; patriots can admit that their countries don't have perfect histories and that even some beloved leaders have done some bad things from time to time. This is part of being human; our ideas might be great, but the human element will often prevail. This is part of having humility.

But the irony is that feminists have a LOT less to admit to! It's not like they have centuries of crusades, purges of rival faiths, destruction of cultures and justification of conquest under their belt; it's not like they purged opposing ideologies or burned books or anything. All they've done, in a way, is be jerks sometimes, lied sometimes and demonized people sometimes. They aren't party to massacres and judicial murder. Yet they are, if anything MORE inclined than nearly any ideology I can think of other than Scientology to pretend that there's nothing wrong with anything expressed by major advocates of the movement and to lie about their benevolent intent towards everybody.

So how can a thinking person take this seriously? I think that the only reason they do is that it is so prevalent and so much stated as being the ONLY thing out there for equality, and because they have actually done a good job of insisting on that point and tarring anyone who doesn't agree with them as a woman hater.

So here's the thing: it's hard not to be on the ropes with tactics like that. All they have to say is "we support women and girls! Don't you? Why don't you?" and people are sold. Anyone who doesn't want to be stuck being a traditional conservative or seem like a woman hater is stuck debating, which will inevitably look like you're debating against equality

Now of course there are lots of people who don't feel this way, but are quietly resentful and intimnidated by the tactics, but lack a clear position to take. People shouldn't have to follow an ideology to be decent human beings, and I think just as atheists take a stand against having it be required of them to do so, so should humanists or individualists.

Having said all this, I also think there's nothing wrong with backing a particular feminist initiative because it could be seen to be generally good, or agreeing with a particular statement a feminist makes. But the movement doesn't have to be generally accepted for a person to do that, nor should someone be admired or supported just because they are a feminist.

[Natapoc]

Here's an irony. Feminism is the only ideology whose supposed moderates consistently respond as the above poster did.

Within feminism I'm far from a moderate. Closer to the radical end of the spectrum. I'm an anarcho-feminist and I'm against all forms of exploitation and believe that the patriarchy must be destroyed by any means necessary. I also want to abolish all gender roles.

Most feminists are more moderate than me.

But more to the point, we really have nothing in common to talk about. You're not going to believe anything I say regardless of how well formed my arguments are anyway.

You are convinced that feminists want to hurt men and you wish to believe this so much that the only way I could convince you otherwise would be if I find a study showing that every person who you believe is a feminist actually desperately loves men and thinks about men every moment of every day in a positive way and always acts in the best interest of every man.

And I'm not even sure you would believe THAT.

[Natapoc]

I'm still waiting for one of those MRA's who were posting in that thread to indicate that they have any empathy for male rape victims. Any feminist would quickly condemn what was said. Why do MRA's not care about rape victims (even male rape victims apparently)?

I'm still waiting for you to apologise for calling me an MRA. But I'm not holding my breath, and unlike you I'm not going to hold a petty little grudge over it complete with faux outrage.

Nonetheless as a non-MRA I absolutely have empathy for any rape victims irrespective of gender. I also happen to have empathy for any victims of false reporting.

One could make the case that because you have communicated no sympathy for the victims of false rape claims you are a hateful person, and because you are a self-described feminist, one could easily hold you up as a strawman for the hateful side of Feminism. If I was to do that, I'd be as bad as you were.

I do not need to apologize or explain the actions of anyone. Also I stopped posting in one of those threads due to the rampant rapist supporting.

Which New Edom eloquently responded to and demonstrated that was untrue.

I only hold you responsible for your own beliefs and actions. I expect the same from you.

You are right, people should be held responsible for their own beliefs and actions, so why should an MRA be responsible for my (supposed) beliefs? Your hypocrisy is showing.

Um yeah exactly as I said.

If you think "teach people not to make false rape threats" is in any way helpful than I don't have anything in common with you and I'm uninterested in communicating with you in any way. I don't talk with people who spread hate speech at this level and all of you in that thread are okay with this.

Most people who are raped never report their rape and it's because of people like you.

[Natapoc]

You seem to think I have some responsibility to explain the ideas and motivations of whatever individual you happen to be fixated on at the moment.

I have no such responsibility. In case you did not know, feminism is not a specific person or organization.

Feminism is a movement. It is temporally, historically, socially, and ideologically located by that movement, as it exists in the real world.

Not...

It's simply an idea that women and men should be treated equally.

... as a vaguely stated notion that not even experts are willing to agree is the actual defining characteristic of feminism.

Tahar Joblis, No matter how many feminists on here tell you that feminism is about equality and that feminist do care about men... You won't believe us until specific individual feminists we have no control over personally tell you that or show you that using some criteria that you decide is good enough for you.

This is ridiculous. Again actual feminists on this forum and pretty much everywhere else agree that feminism is about gender equality: Women reaching equality with men. That's actually pretty much the ONLY thing all feminists consistently agree upon. It's what defines and directs the movement.

How many of us have to tell you this before you'll believe it? You are being unreasonable.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Feminism is a movement. It is temporally, historically, socially, and ideologically located by that movement, as it exists in the real world.

Not...

... as a vaguely stated notion that not even experts are willing to agree is the actual defining characteristic of feminism.

Tahar Joblis, No matter how many feminists on here tell you that feminism is about equality and that feminist do care about men... You won't believe us until specific individual feminists we have no control over personally tell you that or show you that using some criteria that you decide is good enough for you.

This is ridiculous. Again actual feminists on this forum and pretty much everywhere else agree that feminism is about gender equality: Women reaching equality with men. That's actually pretty much the ONLY thing all feminists consistently agree upon. It's what defines and directs the movement.

How many of us have to tell you this before you'll believe it? You are being unreasonable.

You realize you're changing your/'the' definition of 'feminism', right?

...It's simply an idea that women and men should be treated equally.

[The New Sea Territory]

Here's an irony. Feminism is the only ideology whose supposed moderates consistently respond as the above poster did. Christian moderates can admit to excesses and atrocities in the past and presents; Communists can admit the existence of Josef Stalin and Pol Pot; patriots can admit that their countries don't have perfect histories and that even some beloved leaders have done some bad things from time to time. This is part of being human; our ideas might be great, but the human element will often prevail. This is part of having humility.

All of your examples are only half-true. There are plenty of Christians who deny or are ignorant to Christian atrocities, anti-revisionist communists exist, and "patriot" is a near meaningless term.

[Natapoc]

Tahar Joblis, No matter how many feminists on here tell you that feminism is about equality and that feminist do care about men... You won't believe us until specific individual feminists we have no control over personally tell you that or show you that using some criteria that you decide is good enough for you.

This is ridiculous. Again actual feminists on this forum and pretty much everywhere else agree that feminism is about gender equality: Women reaching equality with men. That's actually pretty much the ONLY thing all feminists consistently agree upon. It's what defines and directs the movement.

How many of us have to tell you this before you'll believe it? You are being unreasonable.

You realize you're changing your/'the' definition of 'feminism', right?

...It's simply an idea that women and men should be treated equally.

No actually I am not. If women are equal to men then men are equal to women. This is a fundamental property of what equality means logically.

If A = B than B = A. In mathematics this is called the Symmetric Property. This is usually discussed in elementary school.

Since one needs to be 13 years old to use this forum I assume you've heard of it?

If women are equal to men than men are equal to women.