Feminism in decline

[Occupied Deutschland]

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

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.

Actually, no, 'Women reaching equality with men' isn't the same as 'Women and men should be treated equally', the symmetric property doesn't apply because the statements posses differing meanings. Things that are different aren't symmetric, sorry. You're changing what you claim is the definition of 'feminism', which wouldn't be a problem if your argument heretofore wasn't based upon it being a universal standard for feminism.

Your capability to come up with juvenile insults aimed at someone raising a minute problem with your reasoning as you stated it is noted, however.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

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.

Yes, but therein lies the problem.
You think women need to be raised to the level of men.
That is the problem with feminism, it has a warped view of reality.

What you should be arguing is that both genders are victimized by gender roles in different spheres, and that expanding the privileges each gender has to cover both should be the goal.

That is the problem with feminism. The raising narrative. It results in gynocentric conceptions of problems that actively harm work on mens issues.
We don't think, as you put it, that feminists are "Out to harm" men, but rather that their conception of the reality of sexism is so fucked that they end up harming them accidentally in ways such as the duluth model, persistent demonization of male sexuality, etc.

As I said earlier, feminism could be fixed by abandoning this narrative and adopting a unified approach to sexism that includes both men and womens perspectives of issues, instead of an insistence on gynocentricity.

[Natapoc]

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.

Actually, no, 'Women reaching equality with men' isn't the same as 'Women and men should be treated equally', the symmetric property doesn't apply because the statements posses differing meanings. Things that are different aren't symmetric, sorry. You're changing what you claim is the definition of 'feminism', which wouldn't be a problem if your argument heretofore wasn't based upon it being a universal standard for feminism.

You're capability to come up with juvenile insults aimed at someone raising a minute problem with your reasoning as you stated it is noted, however.

Okay show how they are different. If women reach equality with men this means that women and men are treated equally. What, exactly, is confusing about that?

[Ostroeuropa]

Actually, no, 'Women reaching equality with men' isn't the same as 'Women and men should be treated equally', the symmetric property doesn't apply because the statements posses differing meanings. Things that are different aren't symmetric, sorry. You're changing what you claim is the definition of 'feminism', which wouldn't be a problem if your argument heretofore wasn't based upon it being a universal standard for feminism.

You're capability to come up with juvenile insults aimed at someone raising a minute problem with your reasoning as you stated it is noted, however.

Okay show how they are different. If women reach equality with men this means that women and men are treated equally. What, exactly, is confusing about that?

This is a gynocentric perspective of the issue.
Why not men reach equality with women?

Oh, because then you'd be forced to focus on mens issues?
Well gee, that kind of sounds like a problem Natapoc.

I'm wondering at what point it finally clicks for you what people have been criticizing about your movement.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Actually, no, 'Women reaching equality with men' isn't the same as 'Women and men should be treated equally', the symmetric property doesn't apply because the statements posses differing meanings. Things that are different aren't symmetric, sorry. You're changing what you claim is the definition of 'feminism', which wouldn't be a problem if your argument heretofore wasn't based upon it being a universal standard for feminism.

You're capability to come up with juvenile insults aimed at someone raising a minute problem with your reasoning as you stated it is noted, however.

Okay show how they are different. If women reach equality with men this means that women and men are treated equally. What, exactly, is confusing about that?

'Women reaching equality with men' presupposes as general rule women are automatically the suffering party (insofar as all this has 'suffering parties' in all cases). Hence the usage of 'reaching'.
'Women and men should be treated equally' doesn't presuppose such a thing.

So, to be blunt, the former is sexist while the latter isn't. Which is relevant when one is trying to apply a general statement of principle to all of feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay show how they are different. If women reach equality with men this means that women and men are treated equally. What, exactly, is confusing about that?

'Women reaching equality with men' presupposes as general rule women are automatically the suffering party (insofar as all this has 'suffering parties' in all cases). Hence the usage of 'reaching'.
'Women and men should be treated equally' doesn't presuppose such a thing.

So, to be blunt, the former is sexist while the latter isn't. Which is relevant when one is trying to apply a general statement of principle to all of feminism.

Pretty much. The former is sexist, and it's that sexism which pervades most adherents of feminism and influences their actions and perceptions of reality into being sexist against men.
It's why their movement is a problem that needs to be addressed.
That is the core of MRM criticism of feminism. That they are, because of the structure of their ideology, naturally biased against men.

[Natapoc]

Okay show how they are different. If women reach equality with men this means that women and men are treated equally. What, exactly, is confusing about that?

This is a gynocentric perspective of the issue.
Why not men reach equality with women?

Although some feminists have made arguments that men should have to face the same type of treatment that women do, most reject this reasoning because we don't want men to have to endure what women have had to endure for centuries. We'd like to end systematic sexism: Not impose it on men also!

Most feminists don't want to impose oppression on men equal to the oppression that is imposed on women.

A counter example to this would be those feminists who want to force men to wear shirts (men being equal to women) as opposed to most feminists who support the right of women to not wear shirts in any place where men are allowed to not wear shirts.

Both directions *could* be argued to be feminist and both would be equality. But I'd rather live in the world where everyone has more rights and freedoms than a world where everyone has less.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is a gynocentric perspective of the issue.
Why not men reach equality with women?

Although some feminists have made arguments that men should have to face the same type of treatment that women do, most reject this reasoning because we don't want men to have to endure what women have had to endure for centuries. We'd like to end systematic sexism: Not impose it on men also!

Most feminists don't want to impose oppression on men equal to the oppression that is imposed on women.

A counter example to this would be those feminists who want to force men to wear shirts (men being equal to women) as opposed to most feminists who support the right of women to not wear shirts in any place where men are allowed to not wear shirts.

Both directions *could* be argued to be feminist and both would be equality. But I'd rather live in the world where everyone has more rights and freedoms than a world where everyone has less.

No no, you misunderstand. See, your view of the world is so distorted by feminist ideology that you cannot conceive of what i'm talking about.
Seriously, every neutral person here already knows precisely what I mean. The MRM too. This is why people think feminists are disingenuous liars. I don't think so.
I think you've drunk the kool aid. You literally cannot conceive of issues where men need to be raised to womens level. You think that it means dragging men down to womens, Because of your gynocentric perspective. This is what the problem with feminism is, and why it prevents equality between the sexes.
Raising men to womens level would mean:

More paternity leave rights. (It's an option, not forced.)
Less prison time, and arresting them less.
Allowing them family planning rights such as legal parental surrender, and not allowing women and the state to enslave men to a womans decisions.
Getting people to take a woman raping a man seriously, and not allowing women to have unlimited and unrestricted ownership of mens bodies in this manner.
Repealing the duluth model and opening mens shelters, and campaigning to get people to take domestic violence against men seriously, etc.
Allowing men to break from gender roles as much as women currently can. (And in fact, loosening it up for both.)

Go ahead and argue for a womans issue, and I will show you precisely how feminists act by utilizing an androcentric perspective to show you exactly what you are doing, but from the reverse.
Hopefully you will realize why you have been part of the problem at that point.


(A key example would be; Ofcourse we support maternity leave. Men need women to be able to hold down their own job so they will stop appropriating wealth that men have earned, which is one of the ways in which the lord-serf relationship between men and women is maintained through their entitled attitudes to our labor and resources." This is what feminists sound like. And on other issues, feminism actively prevents acknowledgement, such as legal parental surrender.)

[Llamalandia]

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 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)?

The problem here is that claiming feminism is simply about equality between men and women is ludicrous. While that may be the case in theory it is not how the movement a fault works in practice. I mean that is likely trying to claim that communism is merely the expression of Marxist political and economic theory. Sure that is a half decent dictionary type definition of the word (apologies to communists for any lack of nuance), but the reality of communism is far different. Every time it has been tried we end up with a whole bunch of insane policies and incredible political repression. That is far from the Marxist ideal. Likewise feminism in modern practice falls far short of this ideal definition of equality.

[Llamalandia]

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.

You basically just admitted being a radfem I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion and I applaud your intellectual honesty, but nonetheless yeah you lose a lot of credibility. I mean no offense but isn't the lack of moderation a huge part of why mainstream feminism isn't taken more seriously?

[Llamalandia]

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.

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

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.

A thang I'm pretty sure low reporting numbers are a result of far more and more complex factors. I mean one is that rape allegations in many situations are necessarily hard to actually prove. Ie the classic he said she said between partners. Plus the way society treats rape as being some shameful thing. I feel like it would be more commonly reported if people didn't make as big a deal about rape in general. Not to say that rape is t a bad thing and horrible crime, but I have to imagine no matter how sincere most people come off to rape as victims as hollow and judge mental. You know the common platitudes of it s ok to talk about it if you want I'm here for you etc. it just reinforces the societal notions that rape victims are some ruined or damaged goods who need to be treated gently and almost infantilized.

[Llamalandia]

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

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.

Of course there is also a difference between being treated equally and being treated the same. I mean it would make no sense after for a woman to go for a prostate exam. But that would be necessary if we were to treat men and women the same as your math example would imply.

[Des-Bal]

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.

It's really, really lucky that everybody is against you because if they weren't the fact the way you've poorly formed your arguments would be completely inexcusable.

[Etruria and Alpa]

Feminism - equality between men and women - is increasing.
Feminism as a political movement is still a major, significant political force that (thankfully) isn't slowing down.
I think what this means is that the number of people choosing to self identify as an 'active feminist' is declining.

This is just a guess, but maybe it is because so many people who support equality no longer see it as a necessity to use a political label to express their beliefs,
and also because some people who support equality and true feminism don't want to be equated with insane anti-lgbt radical 'feminists'.

[Apollion]

Do people still not understand that feminism doesn't mean equality for all genders? It has never held that definition, nor did it ever apply this definition to practice.
Feminism is an advocacy movement for women based on the principle of equality. Not the assertion that all genders should be treated equally.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I still don't think we have a term in English that asserts the claim the all genders should be treated equally. So far, I've been using the term gender egalitarianism.

[Etruria and Alpa]

Do people still not understand that feminism doesn't mean equality for all genders? It has never held that definition, nor did it ever apply this definition to practice.
Feminism is an advocacy movement for women based on the principle of equality. Not the assertion that all genders should be treated equally.

Feminism was originally about reaching equality between genders. It still is for the most part. Don't let the name fool you into thinking into it is pro-woman anti-everything else.
A very small minority, probably less than 1% of self-proclaimed feminists advocate that women are better than the rest or that women deserve special status above all others, and even then they are frequently ignored or argued against by the perhaps less vocal majority of moderates.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I still don't think we have a term in English that asserts the claim the all genders should be treated equally. So far, I've been using the term gender egalitarianism.

Gender equality, gender egalitarianism, any term like that. But it is basically identical to moderate feminism.

[Des-Bal]

Feminism was originally about reaching equality between genders. It still is for the most part. Don't let the name fool you into thinking into it is pro-woman anti-everything else.
A very small minority, probably less than 1% of self-proclaimed feminists advocate that women are better than the rest or that women deserve special status above all others, and even then they are frequently ignored or argued against by the perhaps less vocal majority of moderates.

No it wasn't. Feminism has never actually been about anything more than advancing women. Yes there were and are imbalances that favored men but "advance women" was always the stand alone objective. The problem isn't that a few bad apples spoiled the bunch, it isn't that radical feminists hijacked the movement, it isn't that the vocal minority are being heard. It's that there is not and has never really been a real clear and persistent drive to address or even acknowledge gender imbalances that harm men unless tackling those imbalances could immediately be helpful to women.

[New Edom]

Feminism was originally about reaching equality between genders. It still is for the most part. Don't let the name fool you into thinking into it is pro-woman anti-everything else.
A very small minority, probably less than 1% of self-proclaimed feminists advocate that women are better than the rest or that women deserve special status above all others, and even then they are frequently ignored or argued against by the perhaps less vocal majority of moderates.

No it wasn't. Feminism has never actually been about anything more than advancing women. Yes there were and are imbalances that favored men but "advance women" was always the stand alone objective. The problem isn't that a few bad apples spoiled the bunch, it isn't that radical feminists hijacked the movement, it isn't that the vocal minority are being heard. It's that there is not and has never really been a real clear and persistent drive to address or even acknowledge gender imbalances that harm men unless tackling those imbalances could immediately be helpful to women.

So it would be wise then for people who are not actual supporters of any feminist ideology to be a little wary. Perhaps taking things on a case by case basis. We pick how to support other causes--poverty, crime, disease--without letting one ideology do all the talking about it. We need to do the same with gender related issues.

[The New Sea Territory]

Do people still not understand that feminism doesn't mean equality for all genders? It has never held that definition, nor did it ever apply this definition to practice.
Feminism is an advocacy movement for women based on the principle of equality. Not the assertion that all genders should be treated equally.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I still don't think we have a term in English that asserts the claim the all genders should be treated equally. So far, I've been using the term gender egalitarianism.

Feminism is a form of egalitarianism, and to deny this is to deny reality.

[Llamalandia]

Do people still not understand that feminism doesn't mean equality for all genders? It has never held that definition, nor did it ever apply this definition to practice.
Feminism is an advocacy movement for women based on the principle of equality. Not the assertion that all genders should be treated equally.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I still don't think we have a term in English that asserts the claim the all genders should be treated equally. So far, I've been using the term gender egalitarianism.

Feminism is a form of egalitarianism, and to deny this is to deny reality.

Ostensibly it is. In practice it often falls far short of this ideal.

[Des-Bal]

Feminism is a form of egalitarianism, and to deny this is to deny reality.

Bad choice of words. Feminism is theoretically a form of egalitarianism but in reality that's never been the case.

[Natapoc]

You basically just admitted being a radfem I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion and I applaud your intellectual honesty, but nonetheless yeah you lose a lot of credibility. I mean no offense but isn't the lack of moderation a huge part of why mainstream feminism isn't taken more seriously?

No. Feminism isn't taken more seriously because (most) men, who hold most of the social power, don't like being told that we're going to make them share that power equally. They don't want to believe that they even have more social power so they desperately cling to anything that can help reinforce that illusion for them.

If this were economic egalitarianism instead of gender egalitarianism (feminism) we'd be talking about how millionaires are upset about having to equally share their wealth and about how millionaires feel they are actually the disadvantaged ones while the poor have it easy!

And yes I find many radical feminist arguments and tactics to be more reasonable than the alternatives. It should go without saying but this does not mean I agree with everything any radical feminist has ever said in all of history.

[Bearon]

Why can't they just call themselves equalists? I have nothing against their movement but the only people who have ever called themselves feminists on any forums I've gone to are the ones that publicly accuse people and things of sexism where there is none to be found. It's rather offputting.

[Des-Bal]

No. Feminism isn't taken more seriously because (most) men, who hold most of the social power, don't like being told that we're going to make them share that power equally. They don't want to believe that they even have more social power so they desperately cling to anything that can help reinforce that illusion for them.

If this were economic egalitarianism instead of gender egalitarianism (feminism) we'd be talking about how millionaires are upset about having to equally share their wealth and about how millionaires feel they are actually the disadvantaged ones while the poor have it easy!

And yes I find many radical feminist arguments and tactics to be more reasonable than the alternatives. It should go without saying but this does not mean I agree with everything any radical feminist has ever said in all of history.

Yep. Millionaires being upset about paying taxes is identical to men being given heftier prison sentences and forced to pay child support to their rapists. These are completely comparable situations and you aren't being at all ridiculous.

[Des-Bal]

Why can't they just call themselves equalists? I have nothing against their movement but the only people who have ever called themselves feminists on any forums I've gone to are the ones that publicly accuse people and things of sexism where there is none to be found. It's rather offputting.

The problem's not really just the name.