Do You Have to be a Feminist to be Egalitarian?

[Reploid Productions]

You're a feminist. By virtue of that label, hating men and spewing misandry at any opportunity is any feminist's raison d'etre.

You should know better than this by now. This is textbook "All X is Y" flavor of trolling, in this case, essentially stating that "all feminists are man-hating misandrists."

*** Costa Fierro, 3-day ban for trolling. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Frenline Delpha]

Do you believe that any "strains" of feminism are insidiously biggotter towards men?

No.

I am not surprised. Well, thanks for that.

[Neutraligon]

Like I said partially because they disagree with you on what is equality, as well as how to get there. For some, equality is getting back at men for centuries of being unequal. For others what they think of as equality is just not the same as what you (and many others) think is equality. Some actually believe that it is impossible for men to be the victim of rape by women, and some actually believe that any focus on men takes away from the attempt to bring equality to women. They see it as a 0 sum game.

Look, equality is equality is equality. I understand the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, but as regards the rest, it is by definition antiequality.

Except that it really isn't, as different people think different things need to be considered for things to be equal.

For those who believe it is impossible for men to be the victim of rape by women (looking at you, Koss), that is per se an unequal position. It's a position that women are either by definition less capable than men, have less agency, etc, or by definition that men and only men are immune to rape. By very definition it is viewing the two sexes as inherently unequal, and therefore cannot be said in any way shape or form to be equality based.

I would agree, there are others who do not, who think men cannot be victims of rape by women because they are physically more powerful. Since on average physically there is an inequality, they might feel that results must be different for something to be equal. I do not agree with these people, but in their eyes they are supporting equality.

Regarding the zero sum game part, this is not a drive towards equality either. Take rape, for instance. There is no reasonable basis that women are discriminated against, as a gender, when it comes to rape. We know, because we've studied this, that men and women are raped at approximately equal rates. We know, because it's obvious, that women who ARE raped are treated much much better by police and aurhorities than men are. I won't say it's ideal, but it's certainly better. There is absolutely no reasonable basis, at all, that women are treated badly regarding rape because of their gender. Now, rape victims are treated badly, and this should be fixed, but when it comes to gendered discrimination for rape victims, that faced by men is much much worse. If it's a zero sum game, they are attempting to focus their efforts on the privileged class. It's very much like the "white lives matter" people.

Ignoring facts is hardly surprising, and once you take those ignored facts into consideration their positions make sense and do suggest they are driving to what they see as equality. Willful ignorance is sadly a part of humanity.

[New Edom]

Seriously, you really need to read.

And then New Edom responds, also mentioning her.

But the question stands.

New Edom, what do you define as 'feminism', and what do you view as the alternative to it what you wish to promote?

I'm wary of responding. In the past you have not exactly been open to responding to what i've actually said versus what you imagine my meaning really was. With that said I'll respond anyway for the sake of othersw here, and possibly yourself if you will be fair in your responses.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

2. So as stated in the above, I consider myself an egalitarian.

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

4. So why am I wary of feminism and why am I questioning it? Because the practices of mainstream feminism strike me as being against egalitarianism and more in favour of bias against women, and a narrow definition of women at that. I realize there are a number of strains of feminism, but there exists, currently, a strong feminist lobby and movement which generally have a set of agreed upon believes and practices which I find are against genuine freedom.

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

That's just one example.

6. When it comes to what advantages women have and what advantages men have, and their disadvantages, mainstream feminism is in my opinion fundmanetally dishonest. Feminists who are more honest in my opinion about this are shunned or attacked as mainstream feminists--not for how their theories or ideas may be incorrect, but as rape apologist and anti-feminists. So there is no fair conversation about this even within the movement.

So in other words, if we take patriarchy theory at its words, then it is entirely about how it advantages men and entirely about how it disadvantages women. The only disadvantages mainstream feminists will admit to there being for men in patriarchy is things that basically amount to not being supposed to cry or put on a dress. There are no advantages to women in a patriarchal system. This is insisted on even in modern historical textbooks as I found last year. Questioning this is, as I said above, painted as being misogyny rather than skepticism.

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

What I would like instead:

1. Focus on all victims and all perpetrators of rape and other sexual misconduct. See it as an actua crime and not a thought crime.

2. Either leave rape culture theories to sociologists and philosophers or have honest conversations about it that include the point of view of male and female victims of female perpetrators.

3. Examine the advantages and disadvantages that both men and women have in traditional social systems. Stop pretending that there are only advantages for men and only disadvantages for women, and stop pretending that there are no presently existing advantages for women that advantage them over men in our system currently.

4. Accept that there are ideologies that support egalitarianism for both men and women that are not feminist in their analysis and stop claiming the definition as though it has nothing to do with the doctrines and philosophies that have been developed around the idea within feminism.

5. Accept that critics of feminist practices and ideas have the right to express them without being assumed to be ignorant or misogynist. Stop trying to get people silenced, fired, or ruined in other ways for offending the ideals of feminsm. Accept the importance of due process and burden of proof.

That is my point of view.

[The Conez Imperium]

Problem in the world is that women are not treated equal than man
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of women

"Problem in the world is that men are not treated equal to women
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of men"

"Problem in the world is that people of one gender are not treated equal to people of the other gender
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of everyone"

---

Your statement is gynocentric and thus unfair to men.

The second statement is androcentric and thus unfair to women.

The last statement is neutral and fair to everyone. My observation is that mainstream feminism subscribed to the gynocentric statement, while non-feminist egalitarians subscribe to the last statement.

Your argument seems like a 0 sum game where if we concentrate all our resources on helping women, then we can't further men's rights as well.

Whilst I think on the surface level your argument appears to work, I think you fail to realise the implications of raising awareness about equality

In the example of women in the military, increasing the amount women soldiers would appear to be unfair to males as it would appear as if society was glorifying women at the expense of men. However, if "feminism" or equality was conducted correctly, it would raise the issue of equality to the public perception. The message would not be "women can be soldiers" but anyone (including women who everyone thought couldn't fight) can be soldiers.

[The Emerald Legion]

Wow. Tumblr really did infect you. I am so sorry.

Having a tumblr doesn't make somebody dumb or ignorant. Quite to the contrary, it is a great tool for learning and entertainment. Nice job not addressing the point by the way

You mean it's a great tool for Porn. Because that I can't actually look at any of my friends Tumblr's without making them confirm that the post in question isn't just porn. Again.

[Othelos]

I would think it's rather important to favor equality between the sexes in order to be egalitarian.

[Galloism]

I would think it's rather important to favor equality between the sexes in order to be egalitarian.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the question asked?

He was asking if you have to be a feminist, not if you have to believe in equality of the sexes.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I think depends on what you think of when you think feminism. In the Western world, for the most part equality of the sexes exists, and it's only improving, meaning few people feel the need to label themselves as a feminist. The ones who do use the label then are much more often the ones who pull out crazy views.

[New Edom]

And then New Edom responds, also mentioning her.

But the question stands.

New Edom, what do you define as 'feminism', and what do you view as the alternative to it what you wish to promote?

I'm wary of responding. In the past you have not exactly been open to responding to what i've actually said versus what you imagine my meaning really was. With that said I'll respond anyway for the sake of othersw here, and possibly yourself if you will be fair in your responses.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

2. So as stated in the above, I consider myself an egalitarian.

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

4. So why am I wary of feminism and why am I questioning it? Because the practices of mainstream feminism strike me as being against egalitarianism and more in favour of bias against women, and a narrow definition of women at that. I realize there are a number of strains of feminism, but there exists, currently, a strong feminist lobby and movement which generally have a set of agreed upon believes and practices which I find are against genuine freedom.

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

That's just one example.

6. When it comes to what advantages women have and what advantages men have, and their disadvantages, mainstream feminism is in my opinion fundmanetally dishonest. Feminists who are more honest in my opinion about this are shunned or attacked as mainstream feminists--not for how their theories or ideas may be incorrect, but as rape apologist and anti-feminists. So there is no fair conversation about this even within the movement.

So in other words, if we take patriarchy theory at its words, then it is entirely about how it advantages men and entirely about how it disadvantages women. The only disadvantages mainstream feminists will admit to there being for men in patriarchy is things that basically amount to not being supposed to cry or put on a dress. There are no advantages to women in a patriarchal system. This is insisted on even in modern historical textbooks as I found last year. Questioning this is, as I said above, painted as being misogyny rather than skepticism.

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

What I would like instead:

1. Focus on all victims and all perpetrators of rape and other sexual misconduct. See it as an actua crime and not a thought crime.

2. Either leave rape culture theories to sociologists and philosophers or have honest conversations about it that include the point of view of male and female victims of female perpetrators.

3. Examine the advantages and disadvantages that both men and women have in traditional social systems. Stop pretending that there are only advantages for men and only disadvantages for women, and stop pretending that there are no presently existing advantages for women that advantage them over men in our system currently.

4. Accept that there are ideologies that support egalitarianism for both men and women that are not feminist in their analysis and stop claiming the definition as though it has nothing to do with the doctrines and philosophies that have been developed around the idea within feminism.

5. Accept that critics of feminist practices and ideas have the right to express them without being assumed to be ignorant or misogynist. Stop trying to get people silenced, fired, or ruined in other ways for offending the ideals of feminsm. Accept the importance of due process and burden of proof.

That is my point of view.

Feminists got nothing to say to this?

[Jochizyd Republic]

No.

[Crockerland]

You're a feminist. By virtue of that label, hating men and spewing misandry at any opportunity is any feminist's raison d'etre.

You should know better than this by now. This is textbook "All X is Y" flavor of trolling, in this case, essentially stating that "all feminists are man-hating misandrists."

*** Costa Fierro, 3-day ban for trolling. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Thank you for protecting us from wrongthink, comrade Reppy.

[Twilight Imperium]

Thank you for protecting us from wrongthink, comrade Reppy.

You know, on some forums you can get banned for mod sass.

[Jello Biafra]

As you were thoughtful enough to type up this great big post and it seems as though no one responded, I'll give it a whirl.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

How will we know when everyone has equality of opportunity?

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

If women have the legal rights to do these things but have particular social prohibitions that men don't have, is this acceptable?

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

How would you feel about rape culture theory and patriarchy theory if they were slightly modified to incorporate women as physical and sexual abusers of men?

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

This is evidence that the general public is biased against women in higher office. There are other biases against female leaders as well.

[Hirota]

it is a great tool for learning and entertainment.

You mean it's a great tool for Porn.

Isn't that literally what Equalaria meant when she said entertainment?

[New Edom]

As you were thoughtful enough to type up this great big post and it seems as though no one responded, I'll give it a whirl.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

How will we know when everyone has equality of opportunity?

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

If women have the legal rights to do these things but have particular social prohibitions that men don't have, is this acceptable?

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

How would you feel about rape culture theory and patriarchy theory if they were slightly modified to incorporate women as physical and sexual abusers of men?

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

This is evidence that the general public is biased against women in higher office. There are other biases against female leaders as well.

Thanks for responding.

1. It depends on what the social boundaries are. If its feeling emotionally uncomfortable or unsure, then no. That's something an individual has to get over. If it's something more physical we are dealing with that generally as a society and feminsm is merely one of a number of ideological approaches to dealing with it. A good example is harasment or the environment one has at work or school. I've got no issue with for instance a general gender neutral policy at a comnpany against sexual harassment as long as the rules are stark and clear. (ie no initiating a sex related conversation at work, no asking people out or suggesting sexual activity, making lewd comments) I believe in things like physical and mental handicap accomodations as well, to a point. I don't, for instance, think that just because you have the brains for it and really want to that you should be able to become a blind bus driver.

2. I would accept exploration of ideas in rape culture, not policy initiation, if it accepted modifications to include analysis of female initiated abuse and sexual assault. I am wary of policy initiation because the studies I've seen are all over the map and the activism is even worse. I would argue that they are probably well intended at their base though I'm suspicious of the leadership initiating it, but that that's not good enough. I see it as being similar to fundamentalists in the 80s and 90s being concerned about video games and roleplaying games because of worries about teenage suicide. Worrying about suicide is good, the solutions were incompetent and hysterical and in some cases very self serving. This is the same to me--rape is a serious issue, the solutions and theories are dubious.

3. Regarding this evidence: I'm skeptical because these guys are selling seminars and books. it's their business. So naturally in all such things you want to establish that there's a problem but that you have the cure. That's what they teach: they teach corporate reorganization and improvement. Does it work? Maybe? Some of these things do and some don't.

However I looked at their actual work, and they emphasize that there are things women an do themselves about this. One of their baseline ideas is 'reframing situations'.

Here's a comment from a reviwer of their ideas:

It makes me sad that the solution suggested is “Hey, women, reframe how you speak,” rather than “Men, stop being so sexist.”
The problem ISN’T with how women behave, it’s with how men perceive that behavior. Is there a way to make a difference without putting all the responsibility for change on the victim of this discrimination?

So this is pretty much a standard modern mainstream feminist response: women are fine, change men.

The example they showed of a man and a woman saying the same thing which were each judged differently by their thousands of study subjects was interesting, though I noticed immediately that their tones were differnt. The woman seemed more anxious to convince, the man seemed more assured. I've seen examples of this in real life. Anyway I continued watching. Their approach however is to offer WOMEN a solution to how to talk in positions of authority in ways that would work. This is what they suggested:

When women explained their intent before going into a forceful statement, the reaction improved immediately. (It was pointed out that this can be helpful for anyone)

They encouraged women to use this social skill (and others too) to improve their leadership perception. It's a good skill to use.

When I've worked with children I found that this enormously reduces confusion and frustration with them; they have a clear sense of expectation from leaders and it engenders more respect. So in fact they were not suggesting protecting women but enabling them to succeed better.

[Gravlen]

Fire fighters? Police? Coal miners has been shown above.

Well, let's also keep in mind that was back in the 70s - when feminism was really very much about equality. Before the rape apologism and sexist definitions, and before the deliberate efforts to cover up domestic violence got into full swing.

Even so, you notice they never really encouraged women to go into coal mining. Those who already wanted to were given legal assistance. Primarily, it's a women's interests group. That was in those women's interests, so its a feminist cause. The fact that a dirty hazardous job is unnecessarily gendered towards men has not been attempted against.

Well, at least that you've demonstrated thus far.

Keep in mind - I'm not a destroy feminism guy. I'm a "fix your shit and become about equality again" guy.

(You do have kind of a point about fire fighters and police. Much like the military, those are prestigious jobs, and therefore, 'in women's interests' to get into, even though they're both still unnecessarily gendered.)

Here's part of my annoyance: This is an international forum, yet what has happened in the US is often treated as it is the case for everywhere in the world. You do that here when you invoke "the rape apologism and sexist definitions, and before the deliberate efforts to cover up domestic violence". That is not true for the feminist movement everywhere, because there was never really a "feminist movement" which was a single thing. The feminist movement has plenty of local and regional variations, some good, some bad. You tend to ignore this, however, (not always) and you've often cited the actions of women's groups in Israel and India as examples of feminism gone wrong - without providing sufficient context to their actions, in my opinion. The situation in India is difficult to compare to the situation in Europe or North America, and the situation in Israel lacks nuance as to the nature of the complaints. I still haven't seen exactly what the objections concerned, was it the exact language of the law (potentially understandable) or was it the fact that rape of men now became punishable (an objection I would not agree with).

By failing to specify which part of the feminist movement you're talking about, you open yourself up to challenges based on misinformation. For example, you say that feminists have pushed for access to military combat positions due to the glory interest. That's easily debunked when it came to the nordic push for gender equality in the military and in particular the push from feminists (I've shown you before examples of radical feminists speaking in favour of gender neutral conscription) since the glory factor doesn''t really exist in the nordic countries - at least it's significance is much reduced compared to its presence in the US.

But really, the only thing this tells us is that the feminist movement in the Nordic countries and elsewhere is different from the feminist movement in the US. Which I guess is my point.

I do think you're trying to weasel your way out of the coal mining example I've presented above, but to further illustrate my point on the topic of global feminism, I'll simply provide a contemporary feminist push (launched in 2013) to get women into a dirty and hazardous industrial job.

tl;dr: When you're talking about the US, you should clarify that you are. Also, be careful about using examples from other parts of the world.

[Allanea]

[quote[

And then New Edom responds, also mentioning her.

But the question stands.

New Edom, what do you define as 'feminism', and what do you view as the alternative to it what you wish to promote?

I'm wary of responding. In the past you have not exactly been open to responding to what i've actually said versus what you imagine my meaning really was. With that said I'll respond anyway for the sake of othersw here, and possibly yourself if you will be fair in your responses.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

2. So as stated in the above, I consider myself an egalitarian.

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

4. So why am I wary of feminism and why am I questioning it? Because the practices of mainstream feminism strike me as being against egalitarianism and more in favour of bias against women, and a narrow definition of women at that. I realize there are a number of strains of feminism, but there exists, currently, a strong feminist lobby and movement which generally have a set of agreed upon believes and practices which I find are against genuine freedom.

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

That's just one example.

6. When it comes to what advantages women have and what advantages men have, and their disadvantages, mainstream feminism is in my opinion fundmanetally dishonest. Feminists who are more honest in my opinion about this are shunned or attacked as mainstream feminists--not for how their theories or ideas may be incorrect, but as rape apologist and anti-feminists. So there is no fair conversation about this even within the movement.

So in other words, if we take patriarchy theory at its words, then it is entirely about how it advantages men and entirely about how it disadvantages women. The only disadvantages mainstream feminists will admit to there being for men in patriarchy is things that basically amount to not being supposed to cry or put on a dress. There are no advantages to women in a patriarchal system. This is insisted on even in modern historical textbooks as I found last year. Questioning this is, as I said above, painted as being misogyny rather than skepticism.

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

What I would like instead:

1. Focus on all victims and all perpetrators of rape and other sexual misconduct. See it as an actua crime and not a thought crime.

2. Either leave rape culture theories to sociologists and philosophers or have honest conversations about it that include the point of view of male and female victims of female perpetrators.

3. Examine the advantages and disadvantages that both men and women have in traditional social systems. Stop pretending that there are only advantages for men and only disadvantages for women, and stop pretending that there are no presently existing advantages for women that advantage them over men in our system currently.

4. Accept that there are ideologies that support egalitarianism for both men and women that are not feminist in their analysis and stop claiming the definition as though it has nothing to do with the doctrines and philosophies that have been developed around the idea within feminism.

5. Accept that critics of feminist practices and ideas have the right to express them without being assumed to be ignorant or misogynist. Stop trying to get people silenced, fired, or ruined in other ways for offending the ideals of feminsm. Accept the importance of due process and burden of proof.

That is my point of view.

That's only an answer to one part of my question. It's a very fascinating answer, and I find myself in agreement with much of it.

What is the strain of feminism you disagree with, in your view?

[Equalaria]

I'm wary of responding. In the past you have not exactly been open to responding to what i've actually said versus what you imagine my meaning really was. With that said I'll respond anyway for the sake of othersw here, and possibly yourself if you will be fair in your responses.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

2. So as stated in the above, I consider myself an egalitarian.

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

4. So why am I wary of feminism and why am I questioning it? Because the practices of mainstream feminism strike me as being against egalitarianism and more in favour of bias against women, and a narrow definition of women at that. I realize there are a number of strains of feminism, but there exists, currently, a strong feminist lobby and movement which generally have a set of agreed upon believes and practices which I find are against genuine freedom.

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

That's just one example.

6. When it comes to what advantages women have and what advantages men have, and their disadvantages, mainstream feminism is in my opinion fundmanetally dishonest. Feminists who are more honest in my opinion about this are shunned or attacked as mainstream feminists--not for how their theories or ideas may be incorrect, but as rape apologist and anti-feminists. So there is no fair conversation about this even within the movement.

So in other words, if we take patriarchy theory at its words, then it is entirely about how it advantages men and entirely about how it disadvantages women. The only disadvantages mainstream feminists will admit to there being for men in patriarchy is things that basically amount to not being supposed to cry or put on a dress. There are no advantages to women in a patriarchal system. This is insisted on even in modern historical textbooks as I found last year. Questioning this is, as I said above, painted as being misogyny rather than skepticism.

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

What I would like instead:

1. Focus on all victims and all perpetrators of rape and other sexual misconduct. See it as an actua crime and not a thought crime.

2. Either leave rape culture theories to sociologists and philosophers or have honest conversations about it that include the point of view of male and female victims of female perpetrators.

3. Examine the advantages and disadvantages that both men and women have in traditional social systems. Stop pretending that there are only advantages for men and only disadvantages for women, and stop pretending that there are no presently existing advantages for women that advantage them over men in our system currently.

4. Accept that there are ideologies that support egalitarianism for both men and women that are not feminist in their analysis and stop claiming the definition as though it has nothing to do with the doctrines and philosophies that have been developed around the idea within feminism.

5. Accept that critics of feminist practices and ideas have the right to express them without being assumed to be ignorant or misogynist. Stop trying to get people silenced, fired, or ruined in other ways for offending the ideals of feminsm. Accept the importance of due process and burden of proof.

That is my point of view.

Feminists got nothing to say to this?

It's a trite defense of patriarchy really. You can claim to be a purist in regards to outcomes and how we view crimes, buts it's always women that come out disproportionately abused and opressed

[Philjia]

Feminists got nothing to say to this?

It's a trite defense of patriarchy really. You can claim to be a purist in regards to outcomes and how we view crimes, buts it's always women that come out disproportionately abused and opressed

"You are not oppressed enough to fight for your rights"

[Community Values]

Feminists got nothing to say to this?

It's a trite defense of patriarchy really. You can claim to be a purist in regards to outcomes and how we view crimes, buts it's always women that come out disproportionately abused and opressed

Why? In a world of equal opportunity, why do women become oppressed?

[Twilight Imperium]

Why? In a world of equal opportunity, why do women become oppressed?

Well, they wouldn't, one would think. Odd, isn't it?

[Philjia]

It's a trite defense of patriarchy really. You can claim to be a purist in regards to outcomes and how we view crimes, buts it's always women that come out disproportionately abused and opressed

Why? In a world of equal opportunity, why do women become oppressed?

Because they're physically weaker on average, and most of the top dogs in politics and business are men who are more likely to hire men.

[Community Values]

Why? In a world of equal opportunity, why do women become oppressed?

Because they're physically weaker on average, and most of the top dogs in politics and business are men who are more likely to hire men.

Women are becoming more and more involved in both.

[New Edom]

[quote[

I'm wary of responding. In the past you have not exactly been open to responding to what i've actually said versus what you imagine my meaning really was. With that said I'll respond anyway for the sake of othersw here, and possibly yourself if you will be fair in your responses.

1. I am a libertarian, which I define thus: I believe everyone shoud have equality of opportunity. They should be able to achieve an education, acquire skills, deveop relationships in a way that enables them to move towards the goals in life that suit their abilities. I believe that race, sex, physical or mental handicaps, age should not be ipediments to those goals provided the person can given any obstacles still achieve them. (among those I admire for doing so are: Frederick Douglass, Terry Fox, Helen Keller, Emily Murphy, Jackie Robinson, Ludwig van Beethoven)

2. So as stated in the above, I consider myself an egalitarian.

3. I believe, therefore that women ought to have equal rights with men in terms of legal rights, political freedoms, financial freedom, the right to travel, the right to make medical decisions about themselves within a certain limitation (for example obviously we don't want people to go and demand that a doctor surgically remove their hands without a damned good reason for it) to form personal relationships within the boundaries of the generally agreed upon laws, right to freedom of spiritual practice and so on.

4. So why am I wary of feminism and why am I questioning it? Because the practices of mainstream feminism strike me as being against egalitarianism and more in favour of bias against women, and a narrow definition of women at that. I realize there are a number of strains of feminism, but there exists, currently, a strong feminist lobby and movement which generally have a set of agreed upon believes and practices which I find are against genuine freedom.

5. The list of practices against freedoma re:
- The bias on behalf of female victims of rape and sexual misconduct
- That that bias then means that men's concerns as victims are examined less
- That that bias then means that there is less available funding and scrutiny of the problems
- That anything that is a crime against a woman becomes a confirmation bias
- That this approach means that there is a lack of concern for rape and harassment and assault victims and more of a concern for female victims
- That this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to patriarchy theory and rape culture theory.

That's just one example.

6. When it comes to what advantages women have and what advantages men have, and their disadvantages, mainstream feminism is in my opinion fundmanetally dishonest. Feminists who are more honest in my opinion about this are shunned or attacked as mainstream feminists--not for how their theories or ideas may be incorrect, but as rape apologist and anti-feminists. So there is no fair conversation about this even within the movement.

So in other words, if we take patriarchy theory at its words, then it is entirely about how it advantages men and entirely about how it disadvantages women. The only disadvantages mainstream feminists will admit to there being for men in patriarchy is things that basically amount to not being supposed to cry or put on a dress. There are no advantages to women in a patriarchal system. This is insisted on even in modern historical textbooks as I found last year. Questioning this is, as I said above, painted as being misogyny rather than skepticism.

7. However none of this is in my opinion required in order to support women's rights. We should be able to accept that just because there are fewer female politicians does not automatically mean that people are biased against women in higher office. It is more likely that people are less used to it though it has become increasingly normal, and that fewer women are likely to want to run. But that doesn't mean that they would be incapable of running for office if they felt like it. One thing that people rarely talk about in my country for instance is how many women are in our civil service--which is a lot. More than there are elected politicians. Which atually suggests that women are doing very well in government here and simply prefer serving in a capacity that suits them better and that in fact gives good salaries, benefits and position to influence the outcomes of our government.

What I would like instead:

1. Focus on all victims and all perpetrators of rape and other sexual misconduct. See it as an actua crime and not a thought crime.

2. Either leave rape culture theories to sociologists and philosophers or have honest conversations about it that include the point of view of male and female victims of female perpetrators.

3. Examine the advantages and disadvantages that both men and women have in traditional social systems. Stop pretending that there are only advantages for men and only disadvantages for women, and stop pretending that there are no presently existing advantages for women that advantage them over men in our system currently.

4. Accept that there are ideologies that support egalitarianism for both men and women that are not feminist in their analysis and stop claiming the definition as though it has nothing to do with the doctrines and philosophies that have been developed around the idea within feminism.

5. Accept that critics of feminist practices and ideas have the right to express them without being assumed to be ignorant or misogynist. Stop trying to get people silenced, fired, or ruined in other ways for offending the ideals of feminsm. Accept the importance of due process and burden of proof.

That is my point of view.

That's only an answer to one part of my question. It's a very fascinating answer, and I find myself in agreement with much of it.

What is the strain of feminism you disagree with, in your view?

The mainstream, which is often called 3rd Wave intersectional feminism in the West.