The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Galloism]

Then why do feminists keep spreading statistics that utilize sexist definitions of rape to show women have it worse and deny equal rape stats? It makes everything you just said nothing more than a face saving maneuver.

Because the best evidence suggests that rape rates are not equal. There is some evidence that disrupts that viewpoint but based on the best evidence I've seen, I don't think I can accept that claim.

I can say that some men are raped and that's horrible. Even if only one man had ever been raped in all of history that would be one man too many!

It's sad that it's probably greater than 1 in 6 (according to this FEMINIST orgonization) boys have been sexually violated, for example.
https://rainn.org/get-information/types ... al-assault

"researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have been through abusive sexual experiences before even reaching adulthood."

Yes here is another feminist group trying to spread attention to the plight of men who are raped.

Since when is RAINN a feminist group?

They also claim that "Male college aged students are 78% more likely than nonstudents to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.14
"

Now yes you'll go ahead and hate them because they also use an official government statistic that:

"About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime."

That's because that statistic is based on a sexist definition of rape using a survey from 17 fucking years ago (incidentally - the same organization still uses a similar sexist definition of rape, even to the latest surveys up to 2011, which you now object to my use of). I don't really hate them. That would imply they've done so deliberately. I think it's laziness and submission to feminist propaganda which is easier.

And I know you will accuse them of trying to minimize male rape by using it... But I disagree. They are plainly stating contradictory statistics because we simply don't have very good data on male rape.

Our data is conflicting, but this is largely because the definition of rape has been specifically crafted in a number of studies to exclude male victims of female rape - much like the 1998 CDC study that RAINN cites in that instance.

Even data the rates that women are raped are full of controversy. This is not an easy thing to measure.

It is not, but you've just shown again that you're ok with minimizing it. "Well, the data is contradictory so we don't know."

The thing is, when data is conflicting with women, you use the highest possible known figure, and even then, if memory serves, you were the one who asserted, contradicting all evidence, that 1 in 2 women are probably rape victims. Meanwhile, when the data is conflicting with men, you always go for the lowest possible figures.

Why? Because you are sexist.

[Natapoc]

The thing is, when data is conflicting with women, you use the highest possible known figure, and even then, if memory serves, you were the one who asserted, contradicting all evidence, that 1 in 2 women are probably rape victims. Meanwhile, when the data is conflicting with men, you always go for the lowest possible figures.

Why? Because you are sexist.

So when I said "at least 1 in 6"... You somehow took that as me using the lowest possible figures?

[Swith Witherward]

You not being a bad person doesn't mean you aren't supporting a bad movement. It's possible to advocate for women's rights without being a feminist. In this way you would distance yourself from the radical dominance of feminism.

It's not all X are Y to say the various varieties of feminism don't matter in comparison to the radical wing that dominates the feminist movement. It's not moderate feminists who get into positions of power. It's the radical feminists. This makes the other variants of feminism largely irrelevant.

It's quite fortunate anti-feminist egalitarians like me give radical feminists attention, as it's certainly better than letting radical feminists have their way without any opposition.
Maybe if in Canada egalitarians gave the radical feminists more attention when they were lobbying to get Canada's prostitution laws changed to the radical feminist model, perhaps that would have made it more difficult for the radical feminists to have their way.
The worst thing to do would be to ignore the radical feminists while they continue to wield such entrenched institutional power.

You may want to reconsider calling radical feminists asshats. It's needlessly derogatory.

What is your guess?

Sexim would be a good guess.

Egalitarian: of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

You can't be an egalitarian if you're anti-feminist. I support men's rights (gasp!) on many issues. Men have every right to demand equal consideration with regard to safe houses, custody, rape victim support, and so on. They have the right, in the US, to peacefully gather and hold a rally without radfems pulling fire alarms. They have the right to emergency housing, although it's not always available in every city, especially if they have sole custody of their children. If they don't have those things, then men have every right to band together to push for them. I'm an egalitarian. I'm not anti-MRA, although some of their groups sometimes annoy me, but I'm also not interested in fighting for those things. I focus on early childhood education and STEM. That's my gig. I'm a boring feminist. The windmills I choose to battle are equally boring.

Also, I didn't call radical feminists asshats. Asshats, in general, are trolls and should be allowed to starve. Every movement or group has them.

As for ignoring them? The MRA group gathered at the university in Toronto was meeting to discuss suicide rates in men, IIRC. I tried to google it, but all that came up was a long listing of pro/anti Big Red. Perhaps we should have all ignored her and focused instead on the group she victimized? All the energy wasted on her might have been better spent discussing suicide prevention, don't you think?

This is why I suggest we let asshats starve. They detract from what is actually important.

[Valystria]

Then why do feminists keep spreading statistics that utilize sexist definitions of rape to show women have it worse and deny equal rape stats? It makes everything you just said nothing more than a face saving maneuver.

Because the best evidence suggests that rape rates are not equal. There is some evidence that disrupts that viewpoint but based on the best evidence I've seen, I don't think I can accept that claim.

I can say that some men are raped and that's horrible. Even if only one man had ever been raped in all of history that would be one man too many!

It's sad that it's probably greater than 1 in 6 (according to this FEMINIST orgonization) boys have been sexually violated, for example.
https://rainn.org/get-information/types ... al-assault

"researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have been through abusive sexual experiences before even reaching adulthood."

Yes here is another feminist group trying to spread attention to the plight of men who are raped.

They also claim that "Male college aged students are 78% more likely than nonstudents to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.14
"

Now yes you'll go ahead and hate them because they also use an official government statistic that:

"About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime."

And I know you will accuse them of trying to minimize male rape by using it... But I disagree. They are plainly stating contradictory statistics because we simply don't have very good data on male rape.

Even information about the rates that women are raped are full of controversy. This is not an easy thing to measure.

It's not a conspiracy.

It's a very transparent conspiracy. The real numbers contradict your feminist numbers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.

The numbers are as equal as it gets. Stop marginalizing and erasing male victims of rape and drop the gendered narrative of it.

[Natapoc]

Because the best evidence suggests that rape rates are not equal. There is some evidence that disrupts that viewpoint but based on the best evidence I've seen, I don't think I can accept that claim.

I can say that some men are raped and that's horrible. Even if only one man had ever been raped in all of history that would be one man too many!

It's sad that it's probably greater than 1 in 6 (according to this FEMINIST orgonization) boys have been sexually violated, for example.
https://rainn.org/get-information/types ... al-assault

"researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have been through abusive sexual experiences before even reaching adulthood."

Yes here is another feminist group trying to spread attention to the plight of men who are raped.

They also claim that "Male college aged students are 78% more likely than nonstudents to be a victim of rape or sexual assault.14
"

Now yes you'll go ahead and hate them because they also use an official government statistic that:

"About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime."

And I know you will accuse them of trying to minimize male rape by using it... But I disagree. They are plainly stating contradictory statistics because we simply don't have very good data on male rape.

Even information about the rates that women are raped are full of controversy. This is not an easy thing to measure.

It's not a conspiracy.

It's a very transparent conspiracy. The real numbers contradict your feminist numbers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.

The numbers are as equal as it gets. Stop marginalizing and erasing male victims of rape and drop the gendered narrative of it.

Yes, some new studies seem to indicate this. If the majority of studies show this over time then feminism will change very little. We will simply update our pamphlets to show the newest rates and we will carry on advocating for all victims of rape and sexual assault regardless of sex.

[Valystria]

You not being a bad person doesn't mean you aren't supporting a bad movement. It's possible to advocate for women's rights without being a feminist. In this way you would distance yourself from the radical dominance of feminism.

It's not all X are Y to say the various varieties of feminism don't matter in comparison to the radical wing that dominates the feminist movement. It's not moderate feminists who get into positions of power. It's the radical feminists. This makes the other variants of feminism largely irrelevant.

It's quite fortunate anti-feminist egalitarians like me give radical feminists attention, as it's certainly better than letting radical feminists have their way without any opposition.
Maybe if in Canada egalitarians gave the radical feminists more attention when they were lobbying to get Canada's prostitution laws changed to the radical feminist model, perhaps that would have made it more difficult for the radical feminists to have their way.
The worst thing to do would be to ignore the radical feminists while they continue to wield such entrenched institutional power.

You may want to reconsider calling radical feminists asshats. It's needlessly derogatory.


Sexim would be a good guess.

Egalitarian: of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

You can't be an egalitarian if you're anti-feminist. I support men's rights (gasp!) on many issues. Men have every right to demand equal consideration with regard to safe houses, custody, rape victim support, and so on. They have the right, in the US, to peacefully gather and hold a rally without radfems pulling fire alarms. They have the right to emergency housing, although it's not always available in every city, especially if they have sole custody of their children. If they don't have those things, then men have every right to band together to push for them. I'm an egalitarian. I'm not anti-MRA, although some of their groups sometimes annoy me, but I'm also not interested in fighting for those things. I focus on early childhood education and STEM. That's my gig. I'm a boring feminist. The windmills I choose to battle are equally boring.

Also, I didn't call radical feminists asshats. Asshats, in general, are trolls and should be allowed to starve. Every movement or group has them.

As for ignoring them? The MRA group gathered at the university in Toronto was meeting to discuss suicide rates in men, IIRC. I tried to google it, but all that came up was a long listing of pro/anti Big Red. Perhaps we should have all ignored her and focused instead on the group she victimized? All the energy wasted on her might have been better spent discussing suicide prevention, don't you think?

This is why I suggest we let asshats starve. They detract from what is actually important.

You cannot say someone can't be an egalitarian if they're an anti-feminist. Being an egalitarian would require either opposing feminism as a non-feminist, or for a feminist to realize the feminist narrative is faulty and exclusionary as you've indicated recognizing to an extent. Both are valid options. I can accept that you may be an egalitarian, but that won't make me see it any differently that you're supporting a movement that for the most part goes against equality and continues to do so.

There are many egalitarian reasons to be against the feminist movement. What you're claiming amounts to saying a woman's rights advocate who opposes the feminist movement can't be an egalitarian. Why not? It doesn't work that way.

As for ignoring the radical feminists, no it's very important that it gets attention. The reason they are so powerful and influential is specifically because they have been able to quietly get into positions of power without controversy. Ignoring someone powerful doesn't make them less powerful. It only makes them more powerful.

[Valystria]

It's a very transparent conspiracy. The real numbers contradict your feminist numbers.



The numbers are as equal as it gets. Stop marginalizing and erasing male victims of rape and drop the gendered narrative of it.

Yes, some new studies seem to indicate this. If the majority of studies show this over time then feminism will change very little. We will simply update our pamphlets to show the newest rates and we will carry on advocating for all victims of rape and sexual assault regardless of sex.

Why haven't they done that already?

You've had ample time. Same as with the DV rates.

I'm not convinced you care about male victims as much as female victims.

[Natapoc]

Egalitarian: of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

You can't be an egalitarian if you're anti-feminist. I support men's rights (gasp!) on many issues. Men have every right to demand equal consideration with regard to safe houses, custody, rape victim support, and so on. They have the right, in the US, to peacefully gather and hold a rally without radfems pulling fire alarms. They have the right to emergency housing, although it's not always available in every city, especially if they have sole custody of their children. If they don't have those things, then men have every right to band together to push for them. I'm an egalitarian. I'm not anti-MRA, although some of their groups sometimes annoy me, but I'm also not interested in fighting for those things. I focus on early childhood education and STEM. That's my gig. I'm a boring feminist. The windmills I choose to battle are equally boring.

Also, I didn't call radical feminists asshats. Asshats, in general, are trolls and should be allowed to starve. Every movement or group has them.

As for ignoring them? The MRA group gathered at the university in Toronto was meeting to discuss suicide rates in men, IIRC. I tried to google it, but all that came up was a long listing of pro/anti Big Red. Perhaps we should have all ignored her and focused instead on the group she victimized? All the energy wasted on her might have been better spent discussing suicide prevention, don't you think?

This is why I suggest we let asshats starve. They detract from what is actually important.

You cannot say someone can't be an egalitarian if they're an anti-feminist. Being an egalitarian would require either opposing feminism as a non-feminist, or for a feminist to realize the feminist narrative is faulty and exclusionary as you've indicated recognizing to an extent. Both are valid options. I can accept that you may be an egalitarian, but that won't make me see it any differently that you're supporting a movement that for the most part goes against equality and continues to do so.

There are many egalitarian reasons to be against the feminist movement. What you're claiming amounts to saying a woman's rights advocate who opposes the feminist movement can't be an egalitarian. Why not? It doesn't work that way.

As for ignoring the radical feminists, no it's very important that it gets attention. The reason they are so powerful and influential is specifically because they have been able to quietly get into positions of power without controversy. Ignoring someone powerful doesn't make them less powerful. It only makes them more powerful.

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

[Galloism]

The thing is, when data is conflicting with women, you use the highest possible known figure, and even then, if memory serves, you were the one who asserted, contradicting all evidence, that 1 in 2 women are probably rape victims. Meanwhile, when the data is conflicting with men, you always go for the lowest possible figures.

Why? Because you are sexist.

So when I said "at least 1 in 6"... You somehow took that as me using the lowest possible figures?

If you did the same for men and women, took the highest possible figures, you would say that men and women were raped at approximately equal rates (among adults).

If did the same for men and women, taking the lowest possible figures, you'd land at about equal rates for both men and women.

Yet, continuously, you assert that rape is mostly a female problem, even though all data that looks at it in a nonsexist way winds up with a disparity of no greater than 10% (unless you count prison rape in the United States, in which case male victims of rape vastly outstrip female victims, and that's a huge fucking problem - with prisons.)

[Occupied Deutschland]

It's a very transparent conspiracy. The real numbers contradict your feminist numbers.



The numbers are as equal as it gets. Stop marginalizing and erasing male victims of rape and drop the gendered narrative of it.

Yes, some new studies seem to indicate this. If the majority of studies show this over time then feminism will change very little. We will simply update our pamphlets to show the newest rates and we will carry on advocating for all victims of rape and sexual assault regardless of sex.

Yeah, those wascally and untrustworthy 'new' studies with their new definition of rape that includes men, those definitely aren't as trustworthy as the previous studies done over the years which have intentionally excluded male victims 'because penis'.

[Valystria]

You cannot say someone can't be an egalitarian if they're an anti-feminist. Being an egalitarian would require either opposing feminism as a non-feminist, or for a feminist to realize the feminist narrative is faulty and exclusionary as you've indicated recognizing to an extent. Both are valid options. I can accept that you may be an egalitarian, but that won't make me see it any differently that you're supporting a movement that for the most part goes against equality and continues to do so.

There are many egalitarian reasons to be against the feminist movement. What you're claiming amounts to saying a woman's rights advocate who opposes the feminist movement can't be an egalitarian. Why not? It doesn't work that way.

As for ignoring the radical feminists, no it's very important that it gets attention. The reason they are so powerful and influential is specifically because they have been able to quietly get into positions of power without controversy. Ignoring someone powerful doesn't make them less powerful. It only makes them more powerful.

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

It's not impossible at all. I'd go so far as to say it's necessary to be against feminism.

Feminism is not inherently egalitarian...

feminism;
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Nowhere does it say they need to be concerned with anyone else's rights.
It doesn't demand equality between women and men. It only demands making women's rights equal to men's rights. That is the problem and it is why feminism is not a movement for the equality of everyone. You do not get to equality through measuring it by if women's rights are equal with men's rights.

Feminism is a women's rights movement. Not an equality movement.

[Highfort]

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

[Galloism]

You cannot say someone can't be an egalitarian if they're an anti-feminist. Being an egalitarian would require either opposing feminism as a non-feminist, or for a feminist to realize the feminist narrative is faulty and exclusionary as you've indicated recognizing to an extent. Both are valid options. I can accept that you may be an egalitarian, but that won't make me see it any differently that you're supporting a movement that for the most part goes against equality and continues to do so.

There are many egalitarian reasons to be against the feminist movement. What you're claiming amounts to saying a woman's rights advocate who opposes the feminist movement can't be an egalitarian. Why not? It doesn't work that way.

As for ignoring the radical feminists, no it's very important that it gets attention. The reason they are so powerful and influential is specifically because they have been able to quietly get into positions of power without controversy. Ignoring someone powerful doesn't make them less powerful. It only makes them more powerful.

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

If feminism is so inherently egalitarian, why can we find so many feminists that are anti-egalitarian, and famous ones at that?

Some feminists are egalitarian, and there's no doubt about that. but some feminists are very very very very very sexist, and those are the ones that seem to be in positions of power creating policy.

If feminism was inherently egalitarian, then sexist feminists could not exist - yet they do.

inherently: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute; inhering :

[Natapoc]

So when I said "at least 1 in 6"... You somehow took that as me using the lowest possible figures?

If you did the same for men and women, took the highest possible figures, you would say that men and women were raped at approximately equal rates (among adults).

If did the same for men and women, taking the lowest possible figures, you'd land at about equal rates for both men and women.

Yet, continuously, you assert that rape is mostly a female problem, even though all data that looks at it in a nonsexist way winds up with a disparity of no greater than 10% (unless you count prison rape in the United States, in which case male victims of rape vastly outstrip female victims, and that's a huge fucking problem - with prisons.)

At least 1 in 6 literally means "somewhere between 16.66666% and 100%"

I specified that 1 in 6 was a lower bound.

[Galloism]

If you did the same for men and women, took the highest possible figures, you would say that men and women were raped at approximately equal rates (among adults).

If did the same for men and women, taking the lowest possible figures, you'd land at about equal rates for both men and women.

Yet, continuously, you assert that rape is mostly a female problem, even though all data that looks at it in a nonsexist way winds up with a disparity of no greater than 10% (unless you count prison rape in the United States, in which case male victims of rape vastly outstrip female victims, and that's a huge fucking problem - with prisons.)

At least 1 in 6 literally means "somewhere between 16.66666% and 100%"

I specified that 1 in 6 was a lower bound.

And then you referenced back to 1 in 33 and went "well, fuck it, we don't know."

[Valystria]

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

The moderates have had decades and decades to reclaim the positions of power. They haven't gotten anywhere.

I'd say it's problematic that you'd be willing to support a feminism led by moderates. The core problem of feminism remains. It's that the path to equality is not by measuring if women's rights are equal with men's rights. That structurally excludes everyone who isn't a woman.

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

If feminism is so inherently egalitarian, why can we find so many feminists that are anti-egalitarian, and famous ones at that?

Some feminists are egalitarian, and there's no doubt about that. but some feminists are very very very very very sexist, and those are the ones that seem to be in positions of power creating policy.

I find it difficult to believe these very sexist feminists who hold virtually every position of power held by feminists are all somehow a minority.

[Galloism]

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

Indeed. It's a nice broad brush to tar anyone with that dares question feminism's current movement.

"Well, they're criticizing us, so they MUST be anti-egalitarian. Never mind we actually reversed India's rape law to make it sexist again, and have used squirmy definitions to erase male victims of rape and DV for decades. It must be because they hate equality!"

[Natapoc]

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

Not at all, it's a result of logical reasoning which is most simple to arrive at. Simply take the definition of feminism and the definition of egalitarianism. You will see that any negation of feminism also negates egalitarianism.

[Highfort]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

The moderates have had decades and decades to reclaim the positions of power. They haven't gotten anywhere.

I'd say it's problematic that you'd be willing to support a feminism led by moderates. The core problem of feminism remains. It's that the path to equality is not by measuring if women's rights are equal with men's rights. That structurally excludes everyone who isn't a woman.

I think it's possible for feminism to work in conjunction with the men's rights movement and thus present a two-front approach to solving gender inequality. The two, if led by moderates and if willing to compromise, would be able to balance out each other.

As it stands, however, the MRM is basically ignored by the mainstream media and feminism has the floor, which is a serious problem given that radfems have control of the movement and its direction.

[Galloism]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

Not at all, it's a result of logical reasoning which is most simple to arrive at. Simply take the definition of feminism and the definition of egalitarianism. You will see that any negation of feminism also negates egalitarianism.

Thing is, if you use the textbook definition of feminism, then radical feminists are not feminists.

The people that everyone accepts as feminist - IE, Mary Koss being a key example - are no longer feminists. Your conclusion is one giant No True Scotsman.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

Not at all, it's a result of logical reasoning which is most simple to arrive at. Simply take the definition of feminism and the definition of egalitarianism. You will see that any negation of feminism also negates egalitarianism.

Or you could take a look at polling statistics and reach another conclusion.

That the definition of feminism is wrong, because nobody except feminists uses it that way, but they're an instiutionally powerful group who have managed to rig things in their favor.

"There! See! Now you HAVE to support conservatism, we've forced the dictionary companies to say it means being a good person!"

[Highfort]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

Not at all, it's a result of logical reasoning which is most simple to arrive at. Simply take the definition of feminism and the definition of egalitarianism. You will see that any negation of feminism also negates egalitarianism.

The world runs not off of definitions but off of realities. If a definition supports reality I am more than happy to take that definition but as of right now feminism seems not to be living up to its definition in certain areas, namely when it comes to how it deals with rape and domestic violence.

If we simply worked off of definitions, then the Soviet Union must've been a worker's paradise since it was communist; same with China. Definitions can clash with reality and when this happens the definition must be discarded, because we certainly cannot discard reality.

[Galloism]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

The moderates have had decades and decades to reclaim the positions of power. They haven't gotten anywhere.

I'd say it's problematic that you'd be willing to support a feminism led by moderates. The core problem of feminism remains. It's that the path to equality is not by measuring if women's rights are equal with men's rights. That structurally excludes everyone who isn't a woman.

Here's the thing - moderate feminists have done good things. Liberal feminists worked hard to make statutory rape laws gender neutral. Radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral. Feminists in India now cite the making of statutory rape laws gender neutral was a mistake.

I'm pretty cool with liberal feminists.

However, they don't seem to be the ones creating policy these days.

If feminism is so inherently egalitarian, why can we find so many feminists that are anti-egalitarian, and famous ones at that?

Some feminists are egalitarian, and there's no doubt about that. but some feminists are very very very very very sexist, and those are the ones that seem to be in positions of power creating policy.

I find it difficult to believe these very sexist feminists who hold virtually every position of power held by feminists are all somehow a minority.

I present you with the Republican politicians compared with the average Republican voter.

[Valystria]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

Indeed. It's a nice broad brush to tar anyone with that dares question feminism's current movement.

"Well, they're criticizing us, so they MUST be anti-egalitarian. Never mind we actually reversed India's rape law to make it sexist again, and have used squirmy definitions to erase male victims of rape and DV for decades. It must be because they hate equality!"

You don't even have to criticize them to be painted with the tar brush.

All you have to do is say you're not a feminist and then you're automatically forbidden from being allowed to be for equality.

The moderates have had decades and decades to reclaim the positions of power. They haven't gotten anywhere.

I'd say it's problematic that you'd be willing to support a feminism led by moderates. The core problem of feminism remains. It's that the path to equality is not by measuring if women's rights are equal with men's rights. That structurally excludes everyone who isn't a woman.

I think it's possible for feminism to work in conjunction with the men's rights movement and thus present a two-front approach to solving gender inequality. The two, if led by moderates and if willing to compromise, would be able to balance out each other.

As it stands, however, the MRM is basically ignored by the mainstream media and feminism has the floor, which is a serious problem given that radfems have control of the movement and its direction.

I don't disagree that multilateral cooperation is possible. Some do it, but it's a small minority of feminists who are willing to do so. Not enough to make a meaningful difference.
As it stands, for a feminist to remain moderate amounts to propping up radical-led feminism. That's why I consider it to be counterproductive and unhelpful for someone interested in a multilateral approach to remain a feminist.

[Natapoc]

Not at all, it's a result of logical reasoning which is most simple to arrive at. Simply take the definition of feminism and the definition of egalitarianism. You will see that any negation of feminism also negates egalitarianism.

Thing is, if you use the textbook definition of feminism, then radical feminists are not feminists.

The people that everyone accepts as feminist - IE, Mary Koss being a key example - are no longer feminists. Your conclusion is one giant No True Scotsman.

A person can be a feminist without being a consistent feminist. One can be a feminist and be wrong. One can be a feminist and say something outrageous sometimes. One can be a feminist and still hold some really backwards views that sometimes conflict with feminism.

I doubt anyone "does" their ideology perfectly all the time perfectly. Humans are more complex then that.