Does Feminism Logically Conclude to Authoritarianism?

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

I know, I know, "the radical ones aren't true feminists!" But, forget about them for the moment. Think about the movement itself.

First of all, the definition;

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

Now, the second part of that definition is dandy, but the term "advocacy" does display a commitment to the movement. In fact, advocacy could lead onto radicalism. Now, the problem is that it only focuses on one gender to achieve equality of the sexes.

I like to equate the logical progression of feminism to that of Marxism. Of course, the more die-hard Marxists may vehemently oppose that mention, and to be fair it has become somewhat of a scapegoat. However, like Marxism, feminism analyses everything among social lines, as something that needs to change. It advocates the "haves" and "have nots", i.e. the bourgeoisie (patriarchy) and the proletariat (working women).

Now, Marxism states that the end stage of the Dialectic principle, after revolution and consolidation, is communism. Communism is pure ideology; an unimaginable utopia for the politically naïve. In order to uphold this naivety against the logical mind, communists can only employ authoritarianism as a form of methodology for their aim. Hence, how in practice, aspiring communist states tend to cause deaths- both intentional and accidental.

How does this relate to feminism? Well, for three reasons;

1) Marxist-inspired states were hypocritical, in that not all working men united, but- as Lenin proposed- a small group of intellectuals to lead a revolution and a government. Likewise, feminism is mainly a movement for white middle class university professors.
2) Marxists tried to change society by force, as opposed to progress through the Marxist stages in history. Feminists wish to overthrow the dynamic of society by force.
3) Whilst authoritarian feminists and Stalin fanboys are in the minority in their respective movements, they do still exist within their movements. Their opinions are eerily similar to the original ideology.

Does feminism logically conclude to authoritarianism? I don't know, but if a truly feminist state was to occur, it would be restrictive on the freedoms of even its target market.

[San Eulogio]

Please, please, please not another Feminism thread.

[The Serbian Empire]

No, radical feminism on the other hand does lead to authoritarianism.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

It just proves that feminists are struggling harder and harder to find an excuse for their continued existence.

Their ideas might have been actual 40 years ago in the Western world, but in present day's hyper-emancipated society, they are largely redundant and obsolete, driven to increasing extremes in order to maintain a following.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, radical feminism on the other hand does lead to authoritarianism.

What she said.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

No, radical feminism on the other hand does lead to authoritarianism.

See, radical feminism is still feminism. Whilst it may be in the minority, it is still a part of the movement.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, radical feminism on the other hand does lead to authoritarianism.

See, radical feminism is still feminism. Whilst it may be in the minority, it is still a part of the movement.

And?

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

It just proves that feminists are struggling harder and harder to find an excuse for their continued existence.

Their ideas might have been actual 40 years ago in the Western world, but in present day's hyper-emancipated society, they are largely redundant and obsolete, driven to increasing extremes in order to maintain a following.

Sort of like Marxism then.

[San Eulogio]

Well, feminism doesn't per se lead to more authoritarianism on all fields, but they are generally more concerned about punishment for certain acts by men, such as rape, so if a feminist-supporting party would come to power in a country, you might see some more 'authoritarianism' amongst law enforcers and courts when it comes to rapes, sexism etc.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

See, radical feminism is still feminism. Whilst it may be in the minority, it is still a part of the movement.

And?

Well, you cannot outright say, "no it is not feminism, which means feminism definitely does not lead to authoritarianism". It's not a binary issue. If radical feminism- a part of feminism- has the potential to lead to authoritarianism, then feminism partially does as well. Feminism is merely the umbrella terms for many different ideologies concern gender equality.

[Alyakia]

It just proves that feminists are struggling harder and harder to find an excuse for their continued existence.

Their ideas might have been actual 40 years ago in the Western world, but in present day's hyper-emancipated society, they are largely redundant and obsolete, driven to increasing extremes in order to maintain a following.

Sort of like Marxism then.

the marxism comparison is stupid and you should stop doing it because we all know how much you hate marxism already before this turns into another marxism thread

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Sort of like Marxism then.

the marxism comparison is stupid and you should stop doing it because we all know how much you hate marxism already before this turns into another marxism thread

I don't hate Marxism, but I think it's not practical and can lead onto authoritarianism. What part of my comparison is stupid?

[Laerod]

And?

Well, you cannot outright say, "no it is not feminism, which means feminism definitely does not lead to authoritarianism". It's not a binary issue. If radical feminism- a part of feminism- has the potential to lead to authoritarianism, then feminism partially does as well. Feminism is merely the umbrella terms for many different ideologies concern gender equality.

Anything, even knitting, will result in authoritarianism if you reduce it to such absurd extremes.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Well, you cannot outright say, "no it is not feminism, which means feminism definitely does not lead to authoritarianism". It's not a binary issue. If radical feminism- a part of feminism- has the potential to lead to authoritarianism, then feminism partially does as well. Feminism is merely the umbrella terms for many different ideologies concern gender equality.

Anything, even knitting, will result in authoritarianism if you reduce it to such absurd extremes.

Problem is, the reduction to said absurd extremes is common place in movements of equality.

[Laerod]

Anything, even knitting, will result in authoritarianism if you reduce it to such absurd extremes.

Problem is, the reduction to said absurd extremes is common place in movements of equality.

Yeah, but on the other hand: no.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

OP likes to complain about Marxism.

Adolf Hitler liked to complain about Marxism.

Therefore OP is Hitler.

That's how logic works, right OP?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And?

Well, you cannot outright say, "no it is not feminism, which means feminism definitely does not lead to authoritarianism". It's not a binary issue. If radical feminism- a part of feminism- has the potential to lead to authoritarianism, then feminism partially does as well. Feminism is merely the umbrella terms for many different ideologies concern gender equality.

So a deepity.

So what else, anarchism logically leads to corporate dystopias?

Objectivism logically leads to corporate dystopia?

Or socialism logically leads to Stalinism?

Or- Oh! Vegetarianism logically leads to banning meat!

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

OP likes to complain about Marxism.

Adolf Hitler liked to complain about Marxism.

Therefore OP is Hitler.

That's how logic works, right OP?

No. You are strawmanning my argument.

[Flyover]

Are you telling me that a movement that is designed to INCREASE freedom for a historically oppressed group (IE Women) will lead to oppression for everyone?

Will the Civil Rights Movement lead to Authoritarianism? The LGBT one? This very thread?

Like, a "truly feminist state" is not a state where women rule everything, but a state where men don't have more power than women. An authoritarian state CAN be feminist (it won't be, more likely, but it can be just by the definitions of the words)

A state where women make the same as men, where men have the same rights to custody as women, where the genders get the same prison sentences, domestic abuse is understood to be a problem for all and not just women, and where men are not seen as violent and women weak is not a state that will conclude to authoritarianism nonsense by itself.

[Ostenfrankland]

OP likes to complain about Marxism.

Adolf Hitler liked to complain about Marxism.

Therefore OP is Hitler.

That's how logic works, right OP?

Do you drink water? So did Hitler.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Well, you cannot outright say, "no it is not feminism, which means feminism definitely does not lead to authoritarianism". It's not a binary issue. If radical feminism- a part of feminism- has the potential to lead to authoritarianism, then feminism partially does as well. Feminism is merely the umbrella terms for many different ideologies concern gender equality.

So a deepity.

So what else, anarchism logically leads to corporate dystopias?

Objectivism logically leads to corporate dystopia?

Or socialism logically leads to Stalinism?

Or- Oh! Vegetarianism logically leads to banning meat!

I mean that, in theory, feminism MAY lead onto authoritarianism. I am not definite about it. In a truly feminist society, there could be less freedoms for those who do not conform to the ideology. There could be harsher punishments. This is all hypothetical.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Are you telling me that a movement that is designed to INCREASE freedom for a historically oppressed group (IE Women) will lead to oppression for everyone?

Will the Civil Rights Movement lead to Authoritarianism? The LGBT one? This very thread?

Radical feminism possibly, which logically means feminism leads to authoritarianism.

His logic is pointless.

[Gauthier]

Shouldn't be long before the thread heads towards "And things were better back when they stayed in the kitchen".

[The Martian Hegemony]

It just proves that feminists are struggling harder and harder to find an excuse for their continued existence.

Their ideas might have been actual 40 years ago in the Western world, but in present day's hyper-emancipated society, they are largely redundant and obsolete, driven to increasing extremes in order to maintain a following.

Sort of like Marxism then.

Oh no you don't. Yes, there are radicals in both movements, but Marxism is by no means obsolete (personally I don't think Feminism is, or we'd be in a virtual Utopia). Rich people are still using the backs of the poor as their staircases to a never-ending quest for money to build a bigger human staircase, and until that is abolished, Marxism and most other forms of Communism will not be obsolete or unneeded.



Now, back to the main debate.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Are you telling me that a movement that is designed to INCREASE freedom for a historically oppressed group (IE Women) will lead to oppression for everyone?

Will the Civil Rights Movement lead to Authoritarianism? The LGBT one? This very thread?

Just because a movement is designed to increase freedom, doesn't mean that it will increase freedom. Again, this is mainly hypothetical. Just because the movement represents a historically oppressed group, doesn't mean that said historically oppressed group lacks the potential to oppress other groups of people.