Feminism in decline

[New Edom]

Nothing claimed by feminists in this thread is being backed up by any evidence, but that makes sense given that any evidence offered of views feminists actually hold is disregarded. Even when supposed radical feminists make claims that are contradicted by other radical feminsits, this is ignored. How is this in any way a conversation, when one side demands that their conclusions be accepted when they don't hold up to scrutiny?

This would be like one scientist insisting that you can fly just by moving your arms fast and running off a cliff. Pointing to the pile of corpses at the foot of the cliff is disregarded.

[Natapoc]

More paternity leave rights. (It's an option, not forced.)

Sounds great! But I do see the benefits of forcing it so that employers can't punish responsible fathers. It's always been a goal of feminism that men take an equal role in child rearing. Sounds like a good feminist goal.

Less prison time, and arresting them less.

As an anarcho-feminist i'm against prisons or arresting anyone. Prisons should not exist.

Allowing them family planning rights such as legal parental surrender, and not allowing women and the state to enslave men to a womans decisions.

If by this you mean that men should be able to coerce women into having abortions by economically neglecting their children....

I'm sorry but NO. That's not equality, that's child neglect and there is a reason why most people find that abhorrent. You had your choice when you chose to deposit semen in someone. After that point you already chose to accept the possibility of that. Use birth control if you're not okay with that.

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.

I completely agree. Bodily autonomy is a serious feminist issue that most feminists promote. Add circumcision to this list. Unacceptable that parents can mutilate a child's genitals without consent.

Unfortunately we have a very hard time getting people to take rape against ANYONE seriously. We live in a culture where if a woman gets raped people actually think what she was wearing is more important to talk about than how to stop abusers from raping people. A little help from so called "men's rights advocates" in getting rape to be taken seriously would really be appreciated.

Repealing the duluth model and opening mens shelters, and campaigning to get people to take domestic violence against men seriously, etc.

Shelters everywhere are underfunded and often full, having to reject many of the people who need their help. I agree with opening shelters for men but many women are unable to get into abuse shelters also.

We need systematic reform that empowers victims. I'd rather see abusers having to flee to abuser shelters... Yes domestic violence is usually not taken very seriously in general. More attention needs to be paid to this.

Allowing men to break from gender roles as much as women currently can. (And in fact, loosening it up for both.)

Yes Abolishing gender roles is an important aspect of most feminist ideologies.

All these things with perhaps one exception that I mentioned are things feminists care about and are working on.

[New Edom]

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.

I completely agree. Bodily autonomy is a serious feminist issue that most feminists promote. Add circumcision to this list. Unacceptable that parents can mutilate a child's genitals without consent.

Unfortunately we have a very hard time getting people to take rape against ANYONE seriously. We live in a culture where if a woman gets raped people actually think what she was wearing is more important to talk about than how to stop abusers from raping people. A little help from so called "men's rights advocates" in getting rape to be taken seriously would really be appreciated.

Part of my frustration on this subject is that I actually have no issue with saying that a majority of rapes of women are committed by men--I would just like all domestic violence and child abuse ads to include at least the possibility that women form enough of a percentage of abusers for people to be concerned about them too. This is why I don't like "men can stop rape". It entirely profiles men only as rapists. I also don't like anti-abuse ads that only profile males as abusers or potential abusers. The fact that this gets resistance from prominent feminists is part of the reason for my suspicion of the movement generally.

I would also like those feminists who stand for equality to admit that there are feminists, even prominent ones, who stand in the way of admitting that female abusers and rapists exist.

[Ostroeuropa]

More paternity leave rights. (It's an option, not forced.)

Sounds great! But I do see the benefits of forcing it so that employers can't punish responsible fathers. It's always been a goal of feminism that men take an equal role in child rearing. Sounds like a good feminist goal.

Less prison time, and arresting them less.

As an anarcho-feminist i'm against prisons or arresting anyone. Prisons should not exist.

Allowing them family planning rights such as legal parental surrender, and not allowing women and the state to enslave men to a womans decisions.

If by this you mean that men should be able to coerce women into having abortions by economically neglecting their children....

I'm sorry but NO. That's not equality, that's child neglect and there is a reason why most people find that abhorrent. You had your choice when you chose to deposit semen in someone. After that point you already chose to accept the possibility of that. Use birth control if you're not okay with that.

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.

I completely agree. Bodily autonomy is a serious feminist issue that most feminists promote. Add circumcision to this list. Unacceptable that parents can mutilate a child's genitals without consent.

Unfortunately we have a very hard time getting people to take rape against ANYONE seriously. We live in a culture where if a woman gets raped people actually think what she was wearing is more important to talk about than how to stop abusers from raping people. A little help from so called "men's rights advocates" in getting rape to be taken seriously would really be appreciated.

Repealing the duluth model and opening mens shelters, and campaigning to get people to take domestic violence against men seriously, etc.

Shelters everywhere are underfunded and often full, having to reject many of the people who need their help. I agree with opening shelters for men but many women are unable to get into abuse shelters also.

We need systematic reform that empowers victims. I'd rather see abusers having to flee to abuser shelters... Yes domestic violence is usually not taken very seriously in general. More attention needs to be paid to this.

Allowing men to break from gender roles as much as women currently can. (And in fact, loosening it up for both.)

Yes Abolishing gender roles is an important aspect of most feminist ideologies.

All these things with perhaps one exception that I mentioned are things feminists care about and are working on.

Are you in favor of maternity leave?
Why are you in favor ofsubsidies to help women overcome their the economic disadvantage their biology causes them, but willing to use mens biology as a rationale to enforce an economic disadvantage?

Paternity leave being an option doesn't cut it either, since women would also be able to utilize LPS.
In fact, your whining about being forced into abortions cuts both ways. Suppose a woman wouldnt mind giving the man the child, but only if she doesnt have to pay child support. She feels economically pressured by the possibility he will demand child support from her, and so aborts.
So your abortion argument? Yeh, doesn't work. If LPS were available the woman could hand the kid over to the man and wash her hands of responsibility. Further, why are you opposed to family planning options being available to men?
Maybe the woman should have considered the mans wishes before she had sex with him and knowingly risked being a single parent. That logic cuts both ways too.

In addition, it relies on assuming that there would be no adequate safety net for women, so it's completely disingenuous.
Basically, if you support maternity leave but not legal parental surrender, you are a sexist. Because you are bailing out through subsidization one gender for the disadvantage their biology causes them in economics, but not the other. It's a result of gynocentricity and demanding men be of utility to women.

As for "It's an option, not forced." I meant that maternity leave being available to women, but often not men, merely gives them the OPTION of maternity leave. Arguing that having more choices available to them than men is oppression is ridiculous, but i've seen feminists argue it, so I thought i'd cut you off. I also support it being mandatory that men and women get parental leave.
As for the rest of your reply, you did nothing to actually address the point made in the post, instead just responding to the issues I raised as examples to flesh out the point. I'm beginning to think you may well be disingenuous. "Add circumcision to this list." It's nowhere near an exhaustive list. It's just a few examples of issues where men need to have their situation raised in order to be equal to women, which somewhat undermines the point you made earlier.
Which is why you didn't address it, I'm thinking. So yeh. I'd encourage everyone to go over this post chain to see just how disingenuous you are.
Rather than be confronted on your gynocentricity being unjustified, that point disappeared down your orwellian memory hole.
I basically HAVE to assume you hate men at this point, or have your identity bound up in feminism and somehow manage to justify your actions to yourself through rationalizations, because the alternative?
That you're really unaware of what you're doing? That is fucking terrifying. Dozens of times now you've ignored or dropped a subject when it's pointed out to you why your feminism is a problem, as Tahar pointed out earlier. Here, you actively deleted those parts of the post and then addressed the rest of it.
There are only a few explanations for that, and none of them are particularly flattering.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

(Something everyone should keep in mind when debating with ideological zealots. You'll see how often it comes up, and the implications it has about the way they think and operate. I.E, t( this is my suspicion.). This is all a code they've learned.
If A then B.
If B then C.
It's all entirely circular too, and self-contained. You may as well be talking to a chat bot when discussing things with an ideological feminist. There is nothing you can say that will get through to them, and they aren't actually considering what you are saying. Rather, they are taking it as a prompt to respond to with their go-to-10 lines.
I've met too many feminists who've engaged in weirdly robotic and mechanical behavior like this to ignore this about them.
It's the same for all ideological zealots. They have their ideology and it's talking points, and know the arguments and how to respond to criticism.
They don't need to think or consider the points or evaluate reality, rather, they just rely on a particular script. Any points you have that their script doesn't have an awnser to will be ignored, just like Natapoc is doing and has done consistently throughout the thread.)

[Des-Bal]

Part of my frustration on this subject is that I actually have no issue with saying that a majority of rapes of women are committed by men--I would just like all domestic violence and child abuse ads to include at least the possibility that women form enough of a percentage of abusers for people to be concerned about them too. This is why I don't like "men can stop rape". It entirely profiles men only as rapists. I also don't like anti-abuse ads that only profile males as abusers or potential abusers. The fact that this gets resistance from prominent feminists is part of the reason for my suspicion of the movement generally.

I would also like those feminists who stand for equality to admit that there are feminists, even prominent ones, who stand in the way of admitting that female abusers and rapists exist.

The problem is that what you're describing is pretty much all the theory of patriarchy is. Men do bad things, women are the victims of bad things. This is the narrative that feminism comes bundled with and it quite frequently makes absolutely no sense.

[Natapoc]

. It's just a few examples of issues where men need to have their situation raised in order to be equal to women, which somewhat undermines the point you made earlier.

No it does not. Because I don't believe that's a list of issues where men need to be given the same rights as women. I instead explained how feminism already recognizes and is attempting to address most of those issues.

except the one where you seem to think men should be able to control a woman's body just because the man deposited some semen in her... I'm not sure why you consider that equality...

.I basically HAVE to assume you hate men at this point

But misandry!

[Ostroeuropa]

. It's just a few examples of issues where men need to have their situation raised in order to be equal to women, which somewhat undermines the point you made earlier.

No it does not. Because I don't believe that's a list of issues where men need to be given the same rights as women. I instead explained how feminism already recognizes and is attempting to address most of those issues.

except the one where you seem to think men should be able to control a woman body just because the man deposited some semen in her... I'm not sure why you consider that equality...

Heres you being disingenuous again.
In fact, you've actively argued that mens bodies should be controlled in this cirucmstance.
And again, you've ignored my counterpoint where I showed you are just as guilty of pressuring women into abortions by your position.
So yeh. That disingenuousness, and it's done in order to try and drum up ostracization by utilizing the women are wonderful effect and either get people to argue against me because oh noes teh wimminz, or to try and scare me into backing down.

You're actively leveraging female privilege in order to try and win an argument, all the while pretending it doesn't exist. This is fucking hilarious.

How about the draft?
Circumcision?
Etc.
RIght to bodily integrity is a pretty big one.
Why don't you think these are issues where men need to be given the same rights as women exactly?

Are you saying that women should be subjected to MORE violence?
Or do you think men should be subjected to less, and should be elevated to womens position?

[Des-Bal]

. It's just a few examples of issues where men need to have their situation raised in order to be equal to women, which somewhat undermines the point you made earlier.

No it does not. Because I don't believe that's a list of issues where men need to be given the same rights as women. I instead explained how feminism already recognizes and is attempting to address most of those issues.

except the one where you seem to think men should be able to control a woman body just because the man deposited some semen in her... I'm not sure why you consider that equality...

.I basically HAVE to assume you hate men at this point

But misandry!

So you just deleted the bit where he just called you out on deleting the parts of posts calling you out on your bullshit. You're trying very hard not to discuss anything.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

Observation #1: You cut most of my post before replying to it.

The omissions consist of:

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.

A section that addresses precisely why you need to address the activity of individual feminists and feminists you don't control, and how. To be quite specific. You need to either show that they are not sexist, or show that they do not represent the movement. I don't believe either is possible, but you aren't trying. You just say, essentially, that it's not you so it doesn't count when talking about feminism.

You are not the feminist movement. Yes, you do not control the entire feminist movement. Yes, you are not particularly responsible for the actions of other feminists. But because you're not the feminist movement, all of these appeals to your own personal ignorance and your own personal innocence don't say anything about the movement.

I have three basic things to say in the posts you keep trying to evade.

1. There are some feminists (widely accepted as such by other feminists) who express highly negative sexist views about men, and engage in anti-male sexist acts.
2. Because feminist groups include sexist feminists, groups' aggregate behavior is often influenced by anti-male sexism.
3. The feminist individuals and groups with anti-male sexist views and acts to their name have power both within the movement and outside of it.

It's a simple argument. I know there are feminists who aren't sexist. I know there are even more feminists who don't think they are sexist. I know that feminist rhetoric traditionally claims the movement is a gender equality movement. And? Argument holds.

Perhaps more importantly:

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?

In responding to a post that closed by asking you point-blank if you were going to provide evidence for your claims instead of making dogmatic assertions and walking off (which, in the past, you've done either by vacating the thread or changing the subject), you made dogmatic assertions (evidence-free claims seemingly based only in faith) and tried to change the subject.

I'd like you to reflect on that.

[Natapoc]

No it does not. Because I don't believe that's a list of issues where men need to be given the same rights as women. I instead explained how feminism already recognizes and is attempting to address most of those issues.

except the one where you seem to think men should be able to control a woman body just because the man deposited some semen in her... I'm not sure why you consider that equality...




But misandry!

So you just deleted the bit where he just called you out on deleting the parts of posts calling you out on your bullshit. You're trying very hard not to discuss anything.

Oh did I? Probably because they were not even worthy of discussion. I responded to the parts that I decided I had time to clarify. Apparently it did not do any good so I'm glad I did not waste time responding to more of his "points".

[Ostroeuropa]

So you just deleted the bit where he just called you out on deleting the parts of posts calling you out on your bullshit. You're trying very hard not to discuss anything.

Oh did I? Probably because they were not even worthy of discussion. I responded to the parts that I decided I had time to clarify. Apparently it did not do any good so I'm glad I did not waste time responding to more of his "points".

I'm fairly sure i'll come out of this particular exchange looking better than you did, frankly, and it all provides examples for the future to show you aren't arguing in good faith and can be safely written off.
Tahar also points out you did this.

It seems you aren't actually capable of defending feminism from our criticism and instead have to ignore it in order to maintain your ideology.

[Des-Bal]

Oh did I? Probably because they were not even worthy of discussion. I responded to the parts that I decided I had time to clarify. Apparently it did not do any good so I'm glad I did not waste time responding to more of his "points".

You didn't really clarify, you dodged and constructed a strawman.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh did I? Probably because they were not even worthy of discussion. I responded to the parts that I decided I had time to clarify. Apparently it did not do any good so I'm glad I did not waste time responding to more of his "points".

You didn't really clarify, you dodged and constructed a strawman.

Maybe feminism was secretly scientology all along. They've got the tactics down.

[The Black Forrest]

Oh did I? Probably because they were not even worthy of discussion. I responded to the parts that I decided I had time to clarify. Apparently it did not do any good so I'm glad I did not waste time responding to more of his "points".

I'm fairly sure i'll come out of this particular exchange looking better than you did, frankly, and it all provides examples for the future to show you aren't arguing in good faith and can be safely written off.
Tahar also points out you did this.

It seems you aren't actually capable of defending feminism from our criticism and instead have to ignore it in order to maintain your ideology.

You don't have an ideology?

[The Black Forrest]

You didn't really clarify, you dodged and constructed a strawman.

Maybe feminism was secretly scientology all along. They've got the tactics down.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm fairly sure i'll come out of this particular exchange looking better than you did, frankly, and it all provides examples for the future to show you aren't arguing in good faith and can be safely written off.
Tahar also points out you did this.

It seems you aren't actually capable of defending feminism from our criticism and instead have to ignore it in order to maintain your ideology.

You don't have an ideology?

I have a few. But I use them as a guidelines, I don't think they actually are an accurate reflection of reality, rather, I see them as a framework that needs to be constantly checked against and improved upon when inconsistencies arise.

[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.

Observation #1: You cut most of my post before replying to it.

The omissions consist of:

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.

A section that addresses precisely why you need to address the activity of individual feminists and feminists you don't control, and how. To be quite specific. You need to either show that they are not sexist, or show that they do not represent the movement. I don't believe either is possible, but you aren't trying. You just say, essentially, that it's not you so it doesn't count when talking about feminism.

You are not the feminist movement. Yes, you do not control the entire feminist movement. Yes, you are not particularly responsible for the actions of other feminists. But because you're not the feminist movement, all of these appeals to your own personal ignorance and your own personal innocence don't say anything about the movement.

I have three basic things to say in the posts you keep trying to evade.

1. There are some feminists (widely accepted as such by other feminists) who express highly negative sexist views about men, and engage in anti-male sexist acts.
2. Because feminist groups include sexist feminists, groups' aggregate behavior is often influenced by anti-male sexism.
3. The feminist individuals and groups with anti-male sexist views and acts to their name have power both within the movement and outside of it.

It's a simple argument. I know there are feminists who aren't sexist. I know there are even more feminists who don't think they are sexist. I know that feminist rhetoric traditionally claims the movement is a gender equality movement. And? Argument holds.

Perhaps more importantly:

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?

In responding to a post that closed by asking you point-blank if you were going to provide evidence for your claims instead of making dogmatic assertions and walking off (which, in the past, you've done either by vacating the thread or changing the subject), you made dogmatic assertions (evidence-free claims seemingly based only in faith) and tried to change the subject.

I'd like you to reflect on that.

As I said:

Tahar Joblis, No matter how many feminists on here tell you that feminism is about equality and that feminists 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.

I don't believe there is any amount of evidence you would accept so I am not going to waste my time trying to go over every example of any mean or even *gasp* sexist! thing any person you identify with feminism ever said. I don't believe that's a good use of my time.

Yesterday I saw an article posted by Jezebel on Facebook about how a guy got kicked out of a naked bike ride in the uk or somewhere like that for getting an erection. Nearly all the feminists commenting were saying that it was wrong for them to kick the guy out just for having an erection since erections can be involuntary and that as long as he was not leering at or harassing people it was a wrong to punish him.

Yes I know you won't take this arbitrary example to mean anything at all. I know. I'm just saying my every day experience shows feminists standing up for men any time a man has his rights violated, even in ways as minor as being not allowed to ride a bike naked because of having an erection.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

Considering what just happened. (bold/underline added.)
You go off on a rant at Tahar, despite then saying this thing which, you know. We just sort of tried to argue with you about, but you don't want to acknowledge it.
So for all your "How many times do we need to tell you?!"
You're actually ignoring the argument, and it's very obvious you're ignoring it to anyone who even casually reads this thread.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

I have met feminists who will admit (at least privately, one on one) that there are anti-male sexist people within the movement (as rare as that may seem in public discussion on NSG at the moment). But even they still tend to have trouble recognizing specific sexists, recognizing that sexists actually have quite significant power within the movement, recognizing that the movement has power, and still tend to rally around the feminist flag.

[Des-Bal]

As I said:

Tahar Joblis, No matter how many feminists on here tell you that feminism is about equality and that feminists 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.

I don't believe there is any amount of evidence you would accept so I am not going to waste my time trying to go over every example of any mean or even *gasp* sexist! thing any person you identify with feminism ever said. I don't believe that's a good use of my time.

Yesterday I saw an article posted by Jezebel on Facebook about how a guy got kicked out of a naked bike ride in the uk or somewhere like that for getting an erection. Nearly all the feminists commenting were saying that it was wrong for them to kick the guy out just for having an erection since erections can be involuntary and that as long as he was not leering at or harassing people it was a wrong to punish him.

Yes I know you won't take this arbitrary example to mean anything at all. I know. I'm just saying my every day experience shows feminists standing up for men any time a man has his rights violated, even in ways as minor as being not allowed to ride a bike naked because of having an erection.

Do you understand that if you replaced feminist with "Klansman" it would make about as much sense? You literally just asked how many times you would have to say something without any kind of evidence or logical backing before people would believe you. The problem isn't that there exist feminists who aren't nice people the problem is the regularity with which the movement is producing these people and the fact that the movement as a whole doesn't seem as focused on gender equality. This goes entirely against your completely unqualified assertion that feminism obstructs sexism, and that feminists are quick to step up on men's behalf. You made an assertion and backed it up by repeating your assertion.

[Natapoc]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

Considering what just happened. (bold/underline added.)
You go off on a rant at Tahar, despite then saying this thing which, you know. We just sort of tried to argue with you about, but you don't want to acknowledge it.
So for all your "How many times do we need to tell you?!"
You're actually ignoring the argument, and it's very obvious you're ignoring it to anyone who even casually reads this thread.

Yes. I'm ignoring your strawman of feminism which you are calling an argument. I'm instead telling you again what feminism means and in those cases where the issues you bring up actually have some importance I've tried to explain why feminism addresses them.

I'm not accepting your attempt to redefine feminism into whatever you think it is. Feminism is and always has been about gender equality. About women reaching equality with men.

Not all feminists agree on how to reach this goal or even where that goal is. But all feminists must agree on that basic idea. Most feminists take the approach of trying to maximize freedom and opportunity for everyone as often as possible.

[Des-Bal]

Yes. I'm ignoring your strawman of feminism which you are calling an argument. I'm instead telling you again what feminism means and in those cases where the issues you bring up actually have some importance I've tried to explain why feminism addresses them.

I'm not accepting your attempt to redefine feminism into whatever you think it is. Feminism is and always has been about gender equality. About women reaching equality with men.

Not all feminists agree on how to reach this goal or even where that goal is. But all feminists must agree on that basic idea. Most feminists take the approach of trying to maximize freedom and opportunity for everyone as often as possible.

Definitions are for dictionaries. As a matter of simple realities feminism just doesn't work the way you're claiming it does.

[Kumuri]

That moment when the argument goes completely meta, and is now an argument about the arguing skill of the participants.

[Natapoc]

Yes. I'm ignoring your strawman of feminism which you are calling an argument. I'm instead telling you again what feminism means and in those cases where the issues you bring up actually have some importance I've tried to explain why feminism addresses them.

I'm not accepting your attempt to redefine feminism into whatever you think it is. Feminism is and always has been about gender equality. About women reaching equality with men.

Not all feminists agree on how to reach this goal or even where that goal is. But all feminists must agree on that basic idea. Most feminists take the approach of trying to maximize freedom and opportunity for everyone as often as possible.

Definitions are for dictionaries. As a matter of simple realities feminism just doesn't work the way you're claiming it does.

Feminism is an idea. Feminists try, with varying degrees of success, to actualize that idea in the real world. Feminists are always talking about how we can try to do better at that.

Constructive criticism is always welcome within feminism (sometimes overly so... some feminists seem to spend all their time criticizing other feminists rather than confronting systematic sexism... but that's another topic)

[Ostroeuropa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

Considering what just happened. (bold/underline added.)
You go off on a rant at Tahar, despite then saying this thing which, you know. We just sort of tried to argue with you about, but you don't want to acknowledge it.
So for all your "How many times do we need to tell you?!"
You're actually ignoring the argument, and it's very obvious you're ignoring it to anyone who even casually reads this thread.

Yes. I'm ignoring your strawman of feminism which you are calling an argument. I'm instead telling you again what feminism means and in those cases where the issues you bring up actually have some importance I've tried to explain why feminism addresses them.

I'm not accepting your attempt to redefine feminism into whatever you think it is. Feminism is and always has been about gender equality. About women reaching equality with men.

Not all feminists agree on how to reach this goal or even where that goal is. But all feminists must agree on that basic idea. Most feminists take the approach of trying to maximize freedom and opportunity for everyone as often as possible.

It's not a strawman. It's exactly what you argued. That women need to be raised to mens level. I've pointed out why this attitude results in sexist outcomes and minimization of mens issues.
Feminism isn't merely about gender equality.

It's about gender equality by raising women to mens level.
That is not a trivial difference. It's a damned important one.