# Feminist Kiwis (not a honeypot)



## Abethedemon (Nov 20, 2015)

Hey there, I'm just curious if any of y'all are feminists or support feminism. I'd like to think of myself as doing so, but I'm somewhat skeptical to current movements, and I feel certain ideas are loaded in buzzwords and ideas that censor freeze peach. I'd almost think of myself as both a feminist and an MRA since I support equality for all genders.
What are your thoughts?


----------



## Picklepower (Nov 20, 2015)

I don't use the label feminist because of all the baggage, but I do support equality, and think that it's dangerous to pretend like sexism doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## Warden (Nov 20, 2015)

Feminism is equality. That's all. But with all the baggage as @Picklepower said, I'm hesitant to use the word.

Please be careful about calling yourself an MRA, because you can't trust people to be smart enough to understand you advocate for all people's rights. Like if someone wants to wear fursuits just because it's fun, they'd better be prepared to get lumped in with the furfags. It's not fair but that's how it is.

Egalitarian is probably the best word.


----------



## Zeorus (Nov 20, 2015)

If someone asked me if I'm a feminist, I'd say yes, but it's not a central part of my belief system, mostly because I find identity politics really boring. Equality between the sexes, but issues of gender often, in my opinion, are merely a distraction from more serious political issues like class warfare and consolidation of power.


----------



## Dr. Meme (Nov 20, 2015)

i'm an egotarian that means i belive that all genders are equal exept those that arent man or female those guys can go fuck themselves same with genderfluid bullshit like get the fuck outta here


----------



## Derbydollar (Nov 20, 2015)

As an egalitarian, I'm glad to see reasonable people pick up it's flag instead of feminism or manhood madness.
All people equal until they prove otherwise, all people judged as individuals.

Feminism has been colored by chauvinistic extremism for around the past 50 years.
It's unfortunate that the movement turned out the way it did...


----------



## chimpburgers (Nov 20, 2015)

I don't call myself anything. Not an egalitarian, or a feminist, anti-feminist or MRA or whatever other shit exists now to describe these views, though I think that my views would align with the former the most and be mixed with certain elements from the second two positions. There are morons who would call themselves either feminists or MRAs, but others who identify with those things who aren't batshit crazy extremists like them.

With that said, I am in favor of social democracy and being in favor of equal opportunities regardless of what race or gender you are. Just like how even though I am an atheist, I don't go around trying to make these kinds of views to be what I identify with when someone asks me what I believe in. I never gave it much thought either when I called myself a progressive and wasn't aware that even that term has some negative connotations now.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 20, 2015)

I am apathetic to anything that doesn't affect me but am more than happy to use feminism as a means for promoting my own interests. As a result I am opposed to affirmative action since it reduces productivity but against discrimination since it also reduces productivity. More productivity in society means I get an increased purchasing power but I really don't care about it from an abstract idea of equality of opportunity. I also am very happy that women are not economically forced to get married now since that means that loveshies have less power and thus I have more


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 20, 2015)

It's usually a bad idea to call yourself anything ending in "ist."


----------



## Save Goober (Nov 20, 2015)

I don't call myself a feminist because I actually kind of dislike men, and I really don't believe most feminists are misandrists/female supremacists like MRAs claim. Also my opinion does not come from the feminist realm of the internet, or even the "all men are rapists" crowd, it comes from MRA circles and other primarily male circles. Honestly I feel that feminists are the ones trying to convince me #notallmen while MRAs make it way worse. But other than that I'm pretty feminist, somewhere between 2nd and 3rd wave. I like Christina Hoff Sommers but don't agree with a lot of what she says. I don't like Anita, Zoe and others like them.


----------



## Reshiram (Nov 20, 2015)

I'm a feminist. Don't like Anita, Zoe or any of the big Gamergate girls. Obviously fucking hate the fucktards on the other side of the debate even more. MRAs can kiss my diaper


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Nov 20, 2015)

I'm pro choice, I believe in the intelectual equality of man and woman and think they do well to search equality in the workplace and political positions.

That said, I'm not a feminist. I'll never refer to myself as such as long as feminists get behind retarded causes like female friendly air conditioning or the portrayal of fictional women in fucking videogames.


----------



## Cosmos (Nov 20, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> I don't use the label feminist because of all the baggage, but I do support equality, and think that it's dangerous to pretend like sexism doesn't exist anymore.



I'm exactly the same.

Also, I just don't plain feel comfortable calling myself a feminist after the way feminists have treated me (and other non-feminist women) for not being one of them. I've never identified as a feminist; I've always considered myself anti-sexism and pro-gender equality, of course, but I've never felt the need to adopt the feminist label. This is what some feminists think of me for not using a *label*:




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



I'm also pro-life, which according to some feminists makes me a traitor to my gender. People talk about modern feminism being anti-men all the time, but they never talk about how hateful and snobby some feminists are towards women who don't agree with them on everything. Until third-wave feminism as a whole begins to support *all *women and their choices, including the choice to not walk and talk just like they do, I don't feel comfortable labeling myself as one of them.


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (Nov 21, 2015)

I consider myself a feminist, though I am pretty cynical with much of the movement. Radical feminism is something I find especially problematic because many radfems I have encountered were pretty much misandrist (though not all of them, my older brother considers himself somewhat of a radfem and is certainly anti-tumblr). However, a lot of the anti-feminists I have encountered were also rather misogynistic and highly conservative so I have a problem with radical anti-feminists as well.


----------



## Alberto Balsalm (Nov 21, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> It's usually a bad idea to call yourself anything ending in "ist."


I dunno man, guitarists are pretty cool


----------



## Red_Rager (Nov 21, 2015)

I agree with @Cosmos. I don't use the term feminist either, personally the term has been tainted for me.  I respect the work done by feminists in the past to give females a chance to define our own destiny.  The right to vote, own property, have a career. What we are should not be the defining factor of who we are and what our destiny should be. There is still an overlooked segment of feminism that is still doing good work and living up to what feminism should stand for, equality and freedom.  I think most feminists do try to live up to those principles (I really hope so).

What disturbs me about third-wave feminism is the "Us against them mentality" they have and the embrace of gender identity politics.  In their crusade against perceived ills they have forgotten about the individual.  If you are not with the collective then you are against them.  Identity politics is poison, when things get personal there is no room for reason.  People get defensive and treat any form of dissidence as a personal attack. This I believe is the room of the problem of why you can't reason with these people. Not to mention there is the whole, "The ends justify the means" mentality people fall into when called out on hypocrisy and dick moves.

I am reaching a point where I don't feel comfortable labeling myself. Too many people allow labels to define themselves as who they are as opposed to being a shorthand to describe what your beliefs and/or allegiance may lie. Twist my arm though, I prefer the term egalitarian and humanist.


----------



## Too Many Crooks (Nov 21, 2015)

It's a shame that feminists (and feminism itself) are referred to in a contemptuous manner these days because of the obnoxious radicals ranting about patriarchy and shit- especially since women are still treated abysmally in many parts of the world. 

Now no one wants to call themselves "feminist", because they're unfairly be lumped in with angry misandrists (and hypocrites). 

Yet anti-feminism seems to be like: "blaming Jen, Maya, Nicole, and Lynn for something bad Rebecca did- though Rebecca continues her bullshit while the wrong people take the flak for it."

...Thanks for nothing, Dumblr. (And Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, etc.)


----------



## Dark Mirror Hole (Nov 21, 2015)

I no longer know what feminism means anymore. There are people who believe that men can't be feminists or something because they haven't lived as a woman and then there are people who believe otherwise, and it's this constant debating over semantics. I'll just say that I'm an egalitarian and if that also makes me a feminist, then so be it. If it doesn't, I don't care.


----------



## Magpie (Nov 21, 2015)

Loosely, yes.  But like any person with a lick of sense I hold a pretty deep contempt for radical feminists.  I think they're just as damaging, if not more so, than the people who plug their ears and say "la la la sexism is over."


----------



## SpessCaptain (Nov 21, 2015)

I'm a firm supporter of the Egalitarian Movement - equality among people. There are some things I agree and disagree with Men's Rights Movements and Feminism but I think all we all want in the end is to be equal.
Also labelling this thread "Not a Honeypot" makes me wonder what you were expecting.


----------



## Overcast (Nov 21, 2015)

I don't really apply the term to myself. I am for equality though.


----------



## Hanamura (Nov 21, 2015)

dollarhuviya said:


> I don't call myself anything. Not an egalitarian, or a feminist, anti-feminist or MRA or whatever other shit exists now to describe these views, though I think that my views would align with the former the most and be mixed with certain elements from the second two positions. There are morons who would call themselves either feminists or MRAs, but others who identify with those things who aren't batshit crazy extremists like them.
> 
> With that said, I am in favor of social democracy and being in favor of equal opportunities regardless of what race or gender you are. Just like how even though I am an atheist, I don't go around trying to make these kinds of views to be what I identify with when someone asks me what I believe in. I never gave it much thought either when I called myself a progressive and wasn't aware that even that term has some negative connotations now.


Pretty much summed up how I feel.
I don't label myself as any of the above, I just have certain positions on certain issues. Some of those can lean on more of a feminist side, some more on the MRA side.


----------



## Batman VS Tony Danza (Nov 21, 2015)

When I meet a woman who says she's a feminist it feels like Russian roulette . She could be a rational feminist or an SJW calling themselves a feminist. Many guys I know don't even wait around to find out. They just assume they mean the "everything is problematic" kind and bolt.


----------



## Too Many Crooks (Nov 21, 2015)

Batman VS Tony Danza said:


> When I meet a woman who says she's a feminist it feels like Russian roulette . She could be a rational feminist or an SJW calling themselves a feminist. Many guys I know don't even wait around to find out. They just assume they mean the "everything is problematic" kind and bolt.



SJW radfems have gotten to the point when people usually assume the worst. See, now that blows.


----------



## Silver (Nov 21, 2015)

I used to call myself a feminist, but I made care to say that it wasn't radical feminism - I don't believe in the _superiority_ of the female sex, only the _equality_ of the female sex to the male sex. But then I realized two things: 1) equality of sexes doesn't just mean bringing certain treatments of women up to an "equal" standard, because there are certain fields in which men are unfairly discriminated against where they would need to be "brought up", which doesn't seem quite in line with _femin_ism, and 2) the fact that I had to qualify it by saying it's not radical feminism - since radical feminism is the "norm" of feminism now, I'm trying to use a definition that isn't the "normal" one, which is what SJWs have done with all their co-opted terms from other communities and redefinitions of some of the labels they use. Since I disagree with that kind of redefining things to fit a self-serving ideal, I realized it's easier just to say I'm an egalitarian.

There was a time when I was _close_ to the Tumblr ideal of radical feminism, though. I would never have been quite so ridiculous, but I was close.


----------



## Bugaboo (Nov 21, 2015)

I think the majority of people want equality for everyone on earth, except those damn Martians fuck those guys


----------



## Emiya Kiwitsugu (Nov 22, 2015)

I gladly identify myself as a feminist. I personally think the amount of people who claim to be feminist but are primarily SJWs is wildly overblown. The idea of a SJW in general is seems like one of those comically exaggerated things that doesn't exist for the most part off of tumblr. It's like people complaining about hipsters a few years past, it's the new Internet boogeyman who we can all agree sucks, but really doesn't exist a whole lot in our day-to-day personal lives.

There's always going to be people who take a stance way too far in any given social movement. Had you lived half a century ago, would you've been careful not describe yourself as a supporter of the Civil Rights Movement so you weren't confused with Malcolm X's ideology?


----------



## Lipitor (Nov 22, 2015)

So like before I was exposed to feminists on the internet. I suppose I would have considered myself a feminist, although I would have felt uncomfortable labeling myself that way, cuz I'm male. I think women should have all the same rights as men do. It's clear that they by and large want reproductive rights, so I think they should have them. They shouldn't be discriminated against or denied anything due to their gender. I realize that there are some situations where certain intervention is needed to favor women, due to complicated circumstances. Oh yea, rape is bad mm'kay, I think we all know that.

However, where I deviate from them is when they get all butt hurt any time they see something that they feel offends them. Like when its a trivial matter they should just ignore but they kick and scream, and then stir up drama when no one acknowledges their stupid arguments. Too bad feminists, you're gonna be offended by stupid shit in this world. Doesn't mean you can scream rape over a video game character you didn't like or a line of dialogue in a movie. Calm the fuck down and be adult about it, then maybe I'd have a discussion with you about it. But instead some of them just go out accusing large sections of the populations misogynists or bigots just cuz they aren't butthurt too. 

Having said that, I do think there is still legitimate sexism in the world. I mean women still have to put up the political fight to protect their reproductive rights and all. And there are definitely still legitimate misogynists in the world, not just people who like a game with a girl with big tits.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 22, 2015)

Picklepower said:


> I don't use the label feminist because of all the baggage, but I do support equality, and think that it's dangerous to pretend like sexism doesn't exist anymore.


How?


Derbydollar said:


> Feminism has been colored by chauvinistic extremism for around the past 50 years.
> It's unfortunate that the movement turned out the way it did...


Why?


dollarhuviya said:


> With that said, I am in favor of social democracy and being in favor of equal opportunities regardless of what race or gender you are. Just like how even though I am an atheist, I don't go around trying to make these kinds of views to be what I identify with when someone asks me what I believe in. I never gave it much thought either when I called myself a progressive and wasn't aware that even that term has some negative connotations now.


That shit's not progressive. It's been the social norm for 50 years.


melty said:


> I don't call myself a feminist because I actually kind of dislike men, and I really don't believe most feminists are misandrists/female supremacists like MRAs claim. Also my opinion does not come from the feminist realm of the internet, or even the "all men are rapists" crowd, it comes from MRA circles and other primarily male circles. Honestly I feel that feminists are the ones trying to convince me #notallmen while MRAs make it way worse. But other than that I'm pretty feminist, somewhere between 2nd and 3rd wave. I like Christina Hoff Sommers but don't agree with a lot of what she says. I don't like Anita, Zoe and others like them.


Then I dislike women because some are feminists. Honestly I feel the women are the ones trying to convince me "I'm not a feminist" and they just make it way worse.


Reshiram said:


> I'm a feminist. Don't like Anita, Zoe or any of the big Gamergate girls. Obviously fucking hate the fucktards on the other side of the debate even more. MRAs can kiss my diaper


Yes men's rights is worse than women's rights.


Too Many Crooks said:


> It's a shame that feminists (and feminism itself) are referred to in a contemptuous manner these days because of the obnoxious radicals ranting about patriarchy and shit- especially since women are still treated abysmally in many parts of the world.
> 
> Now no one wants to call themselves "feminist", because they're unfairly be lumped in with angry misandrists (and hypocrites).


It's a shame MRAs are referred to in a contemptuous manner these days because gender politics is fucking dumb. Now no one wants to call themselves a "MRA", because they'll be unfairly lumped in with MRAs.


Magpie said:


> Loosely, yes.  But like any person like a lick of sense I hold a pretty deep contempt for radical feminists.  I think they're just as damaging, if not more so, than the people who plug their ears and say "la la la sexism is over."


How?


Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> I gladly identify myself as a feminist. I personally think the amount of people who claim to be feminist but are primarily SJWs is wildly overblown. The idea of a SJW in general is seems like one of those comically exaggerated things that doesn't exist for the most part off of tumblr. It's like people complaining about hipsters a few years past, it's the new Internet boogeyman who we can all agree sucks, but really doesn't exist a whole lot in our day-to-day personal lives.
> 
> There's always going to be people who take a stance way too far in any given social movement. Had you lived half a century ago, would you've been careful not describe yourself as a supporter of the Civil Rights Movement so you weren't confused with Malcolm X's ideology?


You must not be familiar with American universities.


----------



## Derbydollar (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Why?


It's a question that definitely deserves answering.

I would say that it's because special interests groups inherently invoke chauvinism. 
By having a group that mostly excludes others on factors of race or gender, you run the risk of marginalizing those people internally in favor of those you're involved with.

If you're asking about why it's unfortunate the movement turned out it did...
I believe that feminism had great potential, but it has become squandered in the face of charlatans and gender-supremacists.
Women's suffrage is an example of a worthy goal met by feminists.

If you're asking me to substantiate my claims, I would like to direct you to the tumblr subforum.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 22, 2015)

Derbydollar said:


> If you're asking about why it's unfortunate the movement turned out it did...
> I believe that feminism had great potential, but it has become squandered in the face of charlatans and gender-supremacists.
> Women's suffrage is an example of a worthy goal met by feminists


Women vote. What potential was squandered? What should the feminists be promoting which they currently aren't?


----------



## TheProdigalStunna (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> How?
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


get laid lol


----------



## Derbydollar (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Women vote. What potential was squandered? What should the Feminist movement be promoting which it currently isn't?


I personally believe that feminism's purpose is mostly done, but they could have formed a centralized group to fight for womens liberties- Like the ACLU, or something.
Rights tend to atrophy over time. You've got to fight to keep them.


----------



## Emiya Kiwitsugu (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> How?


Unless you're seriously under the belief that any -ism, be it sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc, simply doesn't exist, it's bad to act like such a thing doesn't exist. If there is a societal problem with say, racism, it's best to acknowledge its existence, rather than sweep it under the rug and act like it isn't there. For example, people particularly began declaring that racism, at least against blacks was over once Obama was elected president, but the multiple protests and riots in communities across the countries due to tension between the populace and police attest otherwise. If you personally believe racism wasn't an issue, going out and saying, "lol racism doesn't exist," wouldn't be a good idea either, it would only make rioters more brazen--the destruction more rampant.



PeteyCoffee said:


> That shit's not progressive. It's been the social norm for 50 years.



We literally just had to have the Supreme Court decide only months earlier than it isn't acceptable for states to deny people rights depending on their orientation. Falling back on that same Civil Rights/racism reference, we only fifty-one years ago passed a law saying it wasn't okay to discriminate against people or segregate them. Fear or certain minorities, particularly Muslims after 9/11, and particularly reignited now in the wake of Paris, have only furthered this tension. I'd love it if what you said was true and been so for many years, but that's sadly not the case. Discrimination and prejudice is still a problem.



PeteyCoffee said:


> Then I dislike women because some are feminists. Honestly I feel the feminists are the ones trying to convince me "I'm not a feminist" and they just make it way worse.
> 
> Yes men's rights is worse than women's rights.


MRAs as a whole seem to have more vile rhetoric and beliefs than the opposition. It's not to say that there aren't any legitimate concerns, but it's not as if people who identify themselves as feminist or egalitarian don't believe the same. You don't have to create an entirely new social movement to address it.



PeteyCoffee said:


> It's a shame MRAs are referred to in a contemptuous manner these days because gender politics is fucking dumb. Now no one wants to call themselves a "MRA", because they'll be unfairly lumped in with MRAs.


I think the whole moral of this thread is that be it MRA or feminist, they are both seen contemptuously simply for what other people may misconstrue it as. Like, you know, the part where you dumb-rated me and got snarky because I said I'd describe myself as a feminist.




PeteyCoffee said:


> How?


Radicals on any side of a spectrum tend to damage and embolden the opposition. Decrying the opposition as being a bunch of evil pigs rather than trying to come together peacefully and make your case is obviously going to piss off the people on said opposition more.



PeteyCoffee said:


> You must not be familiar with American universities.



I've only attended an American university for multiple years. Sorry if that's not good enough.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Nov 22, 2015)

Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> There's always going to be people who take a stance way too far in any given social movement. Had you lived half a century ago, would you've been careful not describe yourself as a supporter of the Civil Rights Movement so you weren't confused with Malcolm X's ideology?


If the Nation of Islam followers had been by far the most vocal group in the Civil Rights movement and not MLK's, then I doubt we would look back at it as good thing at all.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 22, 2015)

Feminism is a method through which I express my dominance over weaker men. I want to liberate hypergamy so that my rivals will become incels and I will become a Chad

But I do think that traditional gender norms are economically obsolete and as a result the long term efficient orientation will no longer be a monogamous family unit in which the woman stays home and the man works


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 22, 2015)

Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> Unless you're seriously under the belief that any -ism, be it sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc, simply doesn't exist, it's bad to act like such a thing doesn't exist. If there is a societal problem with say, racism, it's best to acknowledge its existence, rather than sweep it under the rug and act like it isn't there. For example, people particularly began declaring that racism, at least against blacks was over once Obama was elected president, but the multiple protests and riots in communities across the countries due to tension between the populace and police attest otherwise. If you personally believe racism wasn't an issue, going out and saying, "lol racism doesn't exist," wouldn't be a good idea either, it would only make rioters more brazen--the destruction more rampant.


Why do you care so much about racists? Why do racists need such attention?


Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> We literally just had to have the Supreme Court decide only months earlier than it isn't acceptable for states to deny people rights depending on their orientation. Falling back on that same Civil Rights/racism reference, we only fifty-one years ago passed a law saying it wasn't okay to discriminate against people or segregate them. Fear or certain minorities, particularly Muslims after 9/11, and particularly reignited now in the wake of Paris, have only furthered this tension. I'd love it if what you said was true and been so for many years, but that's sadly not the case. Discrimination and prejudice is still a problem.


Before feminists violated the separation of church and state and made marriage a government program, gays could get married. Civil rights also made it illegal to throw the shop owners who refused to segregate their businesses in prison and confiscate their property anymore. Yeah, I wouldn't hire a black person because then I can never fire him or he might sue me for discrimination and then I'd lose everything. Same with orthodox jews and disabled people.


Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> MRAs as a whole seem to have more vile rhetoric and beliefs than the opposition. It's not to say that there aren't any legitimate concerns, but it's not as if people who identify themselves as feminist or egalitarian don't believe the same. You don't have to create an entirely new social movement to address it.


They don't believe the same. Feminists are against MRAs and MRAs are against Feminists.


Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> I think the whole moral of this thread is that be it MRA or feminist, they are both seen contemptuously simply for what other people may misconstrue it as. Like, you know, the part where you dumb-rated me and got snarky because I said I'd describe myself as a feminist.


And racists. Racists are seen contemptuously simply for what other people may misconstrue it as.


Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> Radicals on any side of a spectrum tend to damage and embolden the opposition. Decrying the opposition as being a bunch of evil pigs rather than trying to come together peacefully and make your case is obviously going to piss off the people on said opposition more.


It all sucks.


Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> I've only attended an American university for multiple years. Sorry if that's not good enough.


#BlackLivesMatter #Mizzou


----------



## Sweet and Savoury (Nov 22, 2015)

In my eyes the main issue with the current Feminism movement it that the extremes get all the attention thanks to social media trends and the click-bait media sites. 

IE; #killallmen and cishet-patriarchy conspiracy, put all men in camps and so on. Grrrrrrl power and the need to equalize out-comes rather then equalizing opportunities. You never hear about sensible discussion because that doesn't bring in the ad revenue so your left with the impression most Feminist are total whack jobs.

Feminism has almost run it course IMHO.  Women have equal rights under the law in almost every aspect of their lies (idiocy from the religious right about pro-creation not withstanding) and as the older generation moves off into the sunset the new movers and shakers have little concern over sex like the old guard.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 22, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Feminism is a method through which I express my dominance over weaker men. I want to liberate hypergamy so that my rivals will become incels and I will become a Chad
> 
> But I do think that traditional gender norms are economically obsolete and as a result the long term efficient orientation will no longer be a monogamous family unit in which the woman stays home and the man works


That's true to some extent, however women still have babies and usually want to stay home with them for a while.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> That's true to some extent, however women still have babies and usually want to stay home with them for a while.


What I said was that in the long term the efficient family structure will involve one woman who specializes in childrearing and the other women will take a little time off after giving birth but will quickly go back into the workforce.


----------



## Alberto Balsalm (Nov 22, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> What I said was that in the long term the efficient family structure will involve one woman who specializes in childrearing and the other women will take a little time off after giving birth but will quickly go back into the workforce.


The efficient family structure is a lesbian orgy? I can get behind that


----------



## Jaimas (Nov 22, 2015)

All I will say about my feelings on feminism is this:

My mom was a feminist. 

She believed strongly in civil rights and was one of many who marched for them back in the 60s. She taught me to be fair towards other people - that if you couldn't like them, than at least wish them no harm. My mom insisted on teaching me _actual_ history that you'd never find in any textbook - stories of people she knew who got blasted with fire hoses and who got beaten by police for standing up against some really bastardly shit. A woman more willing to fight for others I have never known. To hear my mom tell it, race, gender, creed, nationality - they didn't matter. _What mattered was the kind of person they were beyond these factors._

Fast forward 20 years.







Now, years after my mom's struggle, I have the pleasure of looking out on any form of social media and seeing people _claiming_ to be Feminists arguing in favor of segregation; arguing in favor of demonizing a giant swath of the population for circumstances beyond their control, arguing in favor of open racism (using a definition, of course, where only one race can be guilty of racism), arguing in favor of sexism (again, using a definition where only one sex can be guilty of it), arguing in favor of robbing people of their agency, and who treat minority dissenters with the same contempt that the establishment was historically known for.


----------



## Yawning Bulbasaur (Nov 22, 2015)

I consider myself egalitarian, and I quite honestly think (being a privileged white male cis scum of course) that the advantages of being female in modern Western society presently outweigh those of being male (more likely to be accepted into college/get hired, not expected to take up manual labor or dangerous professions, less likely to end up homeless or incarcerated and even then having access to women's only shelters and receiving lighter sentences for the same crime, easier time having a social support network and being open and honest about their feelings, preferential treatment by the judicial system/academia/media, more likely to get away with committing domestic violence/sexual abuse, having traditionally masculine interests/hobbies and being less likely to face ridicule for it (I know there's the whole "fake nerd girl" stereotype, but hey even that's miles better than being a brony), etcetera, etcetera)

Sadly enough, the men's rights movement's reputation is so badly tainted by misogynists and vocal extremists that almost no one outside of their movement is willing to listen to any legitimate points they might have, and (most) feminists will respond to men's issues by simply blaming them on "the patriarchy" and then sweeping them under the rug. In the seldom instance that problems faced by women throughout the rest of the world are even brought up (particularly treatment of women in Islamic countries), even those issues are promptly brushed off as "Islamophobia"/"racism".

It's not surprising to me that a lot of people use the "feminist" label as an excuse to act like sanctimonious assholes (same with #BlackLivesMatter, vegans, environmentalists, agenders, pansexuals) and I also notice a lot of self-professed "male feminists" using said label to deflect attention away from their own sexual predator tendencies (Onision, Sarah Butts and PZ Myers being a few noteworthy examples)


----------



## Jaimas (Nov 22, 2015)

Yawning Bulbasaur said:


> I consider myself egalitarian, and I quite honestly think (being a privileged white male cis scum of course) that the advantages of being female in modern Western society presently outweigh those of being male (more likely to be accepted into college/get hired, not expected to take up manual labor or dangerous professions, less likely to end up homeless or incarcerated and even then having access to women's only shelters and receiving lighter sentences for the same crime, easier time having a social support network and being open and honest about their feelings, preferential treatment by the judicial system/academia/media, more likely to get away with committing domestic violence/sexual abuse, having traditionally masculine interests/hobbies and being less likely to face ridicule for it (I know there's the whole "fake nerd girl" stereotype, but hey even that's miles better than being a brony), etcetera, etcetera)
> 
> Sadly enough, the men's rights movement's reputation is so badly tainted by misogynists and vocal extremists that almost no one outside of their movement is willing to listen to any legitimate points they might have, and (most) feminists will respond to men's issues by simply blaming them on "the patriarchy" and then sweeping them under the rug. In the seldom instance that problems faced by women throughout the rest of the world are even brought up (particularly treatment of women in Islamic countries), even those issues are promptly brushed off as "Islamophobia"/"racism".
> 
> It's not surprising to me that a lot of people use the "feminist" label as an excuse to act like sanctimonious assholes (same with #BlackLivesMatter, vegans, environmentalists, agenders, pansexuals) and I also notice a lot of self-professed "male feminists" using said label to deflect attention away from their own sexual predator tendencies (Onision, Sarah Butts and PZ Myers being a few noteworthy examples)



An old friend of my mom's, who's a classical feminist of the Christina Sommers school, once intoned that she thinks that the reasons MRAs have such a terrible rap isn't merely because of the sluthate crowd, but rather because they're a convenient scapegoat to blame shit on. She also once stated that she was worried that the professional victimization crowd would inevitably give cover fire to groups that sought to do others harm because they'd latch onto the same tricks.

I _really_ wish she'd been wrong about that last part.


----------



## Ahffline (Nov 22, 2015)

I'm not comfortable with identifying as feminist given the insanity associated with the word today. I guess you'd say I'm a child of 'Second Wave' feminism, where the struggle has been centred around pay equity. For me, any gender-based discrimination is something that needs to be dealt with, whether it oppresses men or women. Today's feminism is - to me at least - less about equal rights and more about pandering to a certain segment of the population's special snowflakeness.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 22, 2015)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> I guess you'd say I'm a child of 'Second Wave' feminism, where the struggle has been centred around pay equity. For me, any gender-based discrimination is something that needs to be dealt with, whether it oppresses men or women.


"The Gender Wage Gap"





Do you think we should prohibit women from becoming nurses and teachers, or do you think nurses and teachers should get paid as much as doctors and scientists?


----------



## Ahffline (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Do you think we should prohibit women from becoming nurses and teachers, or do you think nurses and teachers should make the same amount of money doctors and scientists do?



I think if you have two teachers - one male, one female - with the same education and experience, they should be paid the same wage.


----------



## Jaimas (Nov 22, 2015)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> I think if you have two teachers - one male, one female - with the same education and experience, they should be paid the same wage.



They are. If they weren't, it'd be against the laws that're _already on the fucking books_. 

The differences in wages are easily explained by differences in biology and hours. Men are prone to working longer and requiring less medical leave, resulting in more hours worked and higher pay as a result on average. Breakdowns of degrees by gender shows that as a general rule, males tend to angle towards higher-paying jobs whilst females are generally predisposed towards lower-paying jobs.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 22, 2015)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> I think if you have two teachers - one male, one female - with the same education and experience, they should be paid the same wage.


That's not fair. Women work significantly fewer hours than men do. (Maternity leave and taking time off to care for children.)


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 22, 2015)

Jaimas said:


> They are. If they weren't, it'd be against the laws that're _already on the fucking books_.



There's no need to pass laws against things that never happen.


----------



## Ahffline (Nov 22, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> That's not fair. Women work significantly fewer hours than men do. (Maternity leave and taking time off to care for children.)



If you work more hours, logically you are not working the same as someone else. Or does the word "equal" mean something else to you?

As I said, I was a child of Second Wave, not Third Wave feminism. I'm from a different generations, I'd wager, than most people here. My mom's generation was the one that fought for those pay equity laws. She experienced it first hand in her own profession, and the issue was resolved by her employer years ago. That's why, if you go back and actually read my first post, you'll notice that's why I don't consider myself a feminist today, since modern feminism deals with creating crises where there are none. 

I wasn't expecting such a reaction to my post. Bravo and thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 23, 2015)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> If you work more hours, logically you are not working the same as someone else. Or does the word "equal" mean something else to you?
> 
> As I said, I was a child of Second Wave, not Third Wave feminism. I'm from a different generations, I'd wager, than most people here. My mom's generation was the one that fought for those pay equity laws. She experienced it first hand in her own profession, and the issue was resolved by her employer years ago. That's why, if you go back and actually read my first post, you'll notice that's why I don't consider myself a feminist today, since modern feminism deals with creating crises where there are none.
> 
> I wasn't expecting such a reaction to my post. Bravo and thanks for the chuckle.


I think we should confiscate some of your money because women control 60% of the wealth in this country and it's not equal.


----------



## TheMightyMonarch (Nov 24, 2015)

I consider myself a feminist but it's not a huge part of my identity. I'm actually kinda weary of people who claim that is a big part of their identity. My old roommate was like that and blamed a lot of her problems on "sexism" when in reality, most of her issues was probably caused by her being a crazy bitch. I'm sure not every one who is big on feminism is like that but I just don't like identity politics in general. I just want to be treated equal because on my gender. Not have a lot of attention directed towards it. 

I still use the term "feminist" because I think the core issues are still important. Yeah it's unfortunate that the crazies over the years have tainted the word to most people but I still don't think it's a good reason to abandon the term completely. I also get kinda annoyed when people associate feminism with SJWs. Thankfully, this forum isn't as bad as other places in regards to that aside from a few posts in Tumblr and SJWs threads.


----------



## Red_Rager (Nov 24, 2015)

TheMightyMonarch said:


> I consider myself a feminist but it's not a huge part of my identity. I'm actually kinda weary of people who claim that is a big part of their identity. My old roommate was like that and blamed a lot of her problems on "sexism" when in reality, most of her issues was probably caused by her being a crazy bitch. I'm sure not every one who is big on feminism is like that but I just don't like identity politics in general. I just want to be treated equal because on my gender. Not have a lot of attention directed towards it.
> 
> I still use the term "feminist" because I think the core issues are still important. Yeah it's unfortunate that the crazies over the years have tainted the word to most people but I still don't think it's a good reason to abandon the term completely. I also get kinda annoyed when people associate feminism with SJWs. Thankfully, this forum isn't as bad as other places in regards to that aside from a few posts in Tumblr and SJWs threads.


To be fair on this forum we are even handed overall on mocking both MRAs/Loveshys and SJWs which helps keeps things in perspective.  When you keep seeing idiocy from the same group of people over and over it is easy to lose sight that problem lies when one goes to the extreme.


----------



## TheImportantFart (Nov 24, 2015)

The "Us vs Them" mentality of a lot of feminists really gets on my nerves. Mark Ruffalo was quoted as saying that if you didn't identify as a feminist you were spitting on all the struggles and hardships feminists of the past had to endure, and Aziz Ansari said that if you supported equal rights for both genders you _had_ to identify as a feminist. Not to mention AronRa's blunt assertion that you were either a feminist or a sexist.

I absolutely support equal rights for both genders, but if you're going to use that to force a label on me (particularly one with as much baggage as feminism now has) and call me a sexist if I'm not comfortable with it then screw you. I believe very strongly that someone should be judged by their actions as a person rather than what they choose to label themselves as.

Also, certain male feminists bother me because they're in it for dishonest reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of male feminists out there who are sincere about the cause but most of the time they seem to fall into two categories:

1) The male feminist who became a feminist because they hoped it would get them laid (I know more than a few people who fall into this category).

2) The male feminist who became a feminist because they knew their girlfriend wouldn't sleep with them if they didn't (Todd in the Shadows, Aziz Ansari himself and again, more than a few people I know).

If it weren't for all that I _might_ be comfortable using the term, but as is I prefer to just say I support equal rights and leave it at that. As far as I'm concerned that's all that matters at the end of the day.


----------



## WWWWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm a feminist. Which is to say that if there are interesting, serious causes that promote social equality, I'm totally considering sending a few pennies their way. And have done so.

I generally don't do personal Internet campaigning. Because a) a lot of people are better at it than I will ever be and b) as you have probably noticed, discussion about social issues in the Internet is bloody impossible on general level. _Things get slightly complicated._

(And for the record, I'm pretty ambivalent about the seemingly super-controversial folks like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. I mean, they're probably not exactly the greatest campaigners of our age. But also very clearly _not_ literally Hitler. So meh. Don't get all worked up, either way.)


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 24, 2015)

"Moderate feminism" advocates for laws contingent on sex. I despise feminists because I despise sexists.


TheImportantFart said:


> I believe very strongly that someone should be judged by their actions as a person rather than what they choose to label themselves as.


Yeah, it's not right to judge people who identify with the Ku Klux Klan or ISIS.


TheImportantFart said:


> Also, certain male feminists bother me because they're in it for dishonest reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of male feminists out there who are sincere about the cause but most of the time they seem to fall into two categories:
> 
> 1) The male feminist who became a feminist because they hoped it would get them laid (I know more than a few people who fall into this category).
> 
> 2) The male feminist who became a feminist because they knew their girlfriend wouldn't sleep with them if they didn't (Todd in the Shadows, Aziz Ansari himself and again, more than a few people I know).


I think men advocate for feminism for the same reason women advocate for sharia law: social pressures and wanting to be a part of the in crowd.


----------



## Magpie (Nov 25, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> "Moderate feminism" advocates for laws contingent on sex. I despise feminists because I despise sexists.
> 
> Yeah, it's not right to judge people who identify with the Ku Klux Klan or ISIS.
> 
> I think men advocate for feminism for the same reason women advocate for sharia law: social pressures and wanting to be a part of the in crowd.



You are comparing feminists to legitimate mass murderers and terrorists and somehow think you're right in that.  Okay.  

Now it is hardly a rarity for men to propose and pass laws that are contingent on sex, see laws regarding abortion, access to contraception, etc.  Do you hate the men who do these things as much as you hate the women combating these things?  Something tells me that you don't, but hey that's just a hunch.


----------



## chimpburgers (Nov 25, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> No, I was saying that *if* it's not right to judge people based on the group they identify with, then you can't judge ISIS members or Klansmen either.
> 
> But now I will. Feminism is worse than the Ku Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan advocates for fewer rights for blacks, ~13.2% of the population. Feminism advocates for fewer rights for men, ~49.6% of the population. In my personal experience, a higher percentage of Feminists support extermination of men than Klansmen support extermination of blacks. [1] Because even the (contemporary) Ku Klux Klan follows The Bible which says murder is an abomination, whereas Feminism as a whole has no rules and is an abomination. Last, Klansmen wear funny hats.
> 
> ...


Are you sure you aren't just making some extreme false equivalency with that statement?


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 25, 2015)

dollarhuviya said:


> Are you sure you aren't just making some extreme false equivalency with that statement?





TheImportantFart said:


> I believe very strongly that someone should be judged by their actions as a person rather than what they choose to label themselves as.


can't just apply to the people she likes, or at least in that case it isn't something she "believe[s ] very strongly". Though if she said, "I believe very strongly that _feminists_ should be judged by their actions as a person rather than what they choose to label themselves as", in that case it probably would have worked. She also could have used "liberals", "non-wackos", or "upstanding men and women". Or most succinctly, "people I like".


----------



## TheImportantFart (Nov 25, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> can't just apply to the people she likes, or at least in that case it isn't something she "believe very strongly". Though if she said, "I believe very strongly that _feminists_ should be judged by their actions as a person rather than what they choose to label themselves as", in that case it probably would have worked. She also could have used "liberals", "non-wackos", or "upstanding men and women". Or most succinctly, "people I like".


I'm a "he" actually you misgendering shitlord!


----------



## SpessCaptain (Nov 25, 2015)

Please note that baitposting isn't allowed in Deep Thoughts, if these posts are your legitimate opinions on things then still, refrain from calling something "Worse than ISIS"


----------



## BT 075 (Nov 25, 2015)

I don't like a lot of feminists but I respect them for pissing off people I like even less such as the whole "I'm super egalitarian u guise men's rights are totally the new civil rights movement" crowd. I mean Jesus Christ can't you just be upfront about what you want? You want women back in the kitchen and cooking you a steak, just say so. You want to go back to the old days, admit it already. Don't be a pussy and act like you care about "equal rights".

Even when I disagree with feminists, I at least know where they stand and why. I appreciate the honesty.


----------



## RichardDripp (Nov 25, 2015)

Abethedemon said:


> Hey there, I'm just curious if any of y'all are feminists or support feminism. I'd like to think of myself as doing so, but I'm somewhat skeptical to current movements, and I feel certain ideas are loaded in buzzwords and ideas that censor freeze peach. I'd almost think of myself as both a feminist and an MRA since I support equality for all genders.
> What are your thoughts?


Yep, that would be about right. I was fairly recently rejected from some SJW circles because I dared question and call out some of the hypocrisy. Without going into too much detail, I would not consider myself an MRA, but some MRAs have reasonable complaints such as custody issues, equality of opportunity and the like. When it goes into crazy and stupid territory like anti-PUA, RooshV, Sandman, etc., that's when I just shake my head.


----------



## Magpie (Nov 25, 2015)

I can see where people have a distaste with feminism and the baggage it carries.  Even I do.  But egalitarian carries its own baggage, as Satan put it, of being too much of a pussy to admit that you think women should remain second class citizens.  Is that the case with everyone who uses that label?  No, but a lot of people do, and at the same time they are not representative of the whole lot who uses the label.  This is just like how there are the man-hating political lesbian separatist nutjob feminists, who also don't represent feminism on the large scale.

Edited to remove reply to blatant bait post- Vitriol


----------



## Sanae Kochiya (Nov 25, 2015)

I mostly came here because @PeteyCoffee's a dumbass, but since I'm here I might as well answer the question posed.



Abethedemon said:


> Hey there, I'm just curious if any of y'all are feminists or support feminism. I'd like to think of myself as doing so, but I'm somewhat skeptical to current movements, and I feel certain ideas are loaded in buzzwords and ideas that censor freeze peach. I'd almost think of myself as both a feminist and an MRA since I support equality for all genders.
> What are your thoughts?


I support feminism in the idea that I support women having equal support in different industrial fields and that there shouldn't be any fucking discrimination at all between genders.  The closest that you could probably get to a "fair inequality" would be the fact that women might have to take an unexpected leave due to pregnancy and I think everyone knows that this is always a possibility, hence the lower paycheck and all of that shit, but really beyond that you're hard pressed to actually give a legitimate reason why men and women can't do the same shit for the same things.

Being a "feminist developer" or a "women developer" or a "transexual developer" is stupid.  People should be judged on their merits, not by biological factors that they had no control over (and you know what I'm talking about - saying that you can choose to be a tranny is missing the fucking point).  George Lucas could a black, genderfluid furry woman and I would still think Star Wars was awesome (up until he ruined it).


----------



## Ahffline (Nov 25, 2015)

RichardDripp said:


> Yep, that would be about right. I was fairly recently rejected from some SJW circles because I dared question and call out some of the hypocrisy. Without going into too much detail, I would not consider myself an MRA, but some MRAs have reasonable complaints such as custody issues, equality of opportunity and the like. When it goes into crazy and stupid territory like anti-PUA, RooshV, Sandman, etc., that's when I just shake my head.



Unfortunately, it's the extremists in both movements that taint public opinion of them. Both men and women have legitimate issues that need to be addressed, but those often get drowned out by the shrieks of extremists on both sides.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 25, 2015)

Sanae Kochiya said:


> *raises hand*
> 
> Yes, PeteyCoffee-sensei.  Can you please tell us how many people feminism has killed?



I'll grant Valerie Solanas.  I can come up with more people lynched in one picture than feminists have killed in general, though.


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 25, 2015)

Deleted a blatant baitpost and the replies, please just report and ignore obvious bait like 'feminists are worse than the kkk' or i'll lock the thread.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 25, 2015)

Satan said:


> I don't like a lot of feminists but I respect them for pissing off people I like even less such as the whole "I'm super egalitarian u guise men's rights are totally the new civil rights movement" crowd. I mean Jesus Christ can't you just be upfront about what you want? You want women back in the kitchen and cooking you a steak, just say so. You want to go back to the old days, admit it already. Don't be a pussy and act like you care about "equal rights".
> 
> Even when I disagree with feminists, I at least know where they stand and why. I appreciate the honesty.


I believe you're dismissing these people based only on what Feminism has to say about them. I mean, I know from personal experience that a lot of these MRAs are insane (and in my opinion they're all dumb because gender politics is asinine as a whole.) But hell, Feminism is calling women sluts and saying women should not be wearing certain clothing. But _Those Dang_ _Men's Rights Activists_ are the traditionalists.


Magpie said:


> I don't think his chance at not being a virgin with rage counts as a person. Also in before he says however many fetuses are aborted because those dang dirty women want to exercise bodily autonomy.
> 
> But on the less shallow-posty side, I can see where people have a distaste with feminism and the baggage it carries. Even I do. But egalitarian carries its own baggage, as Satan put it, of being too much of a pussy to admit that you think women should remain second class citizens. Is that the case with everyone who uses that label? No, but a lot of people do, and at the same time they are not representative of the whole lot who uses the label. This is just like how there are the man-hating political lesbian separatist nutjob feminists, who also don't represent feminism on the large scale.


As a matter of fact, I am an ardent advocate for the murder of unborn children. We stand together on this. But I call it like it is.

I've heard Klansmen say, "Whites have been relegated to second class citizens with all these damn blacks walking around." That's you (replacing whites with women and blacks with men).


Sanae Kochiya said:


> I support feminism in the idea that I support women having equal support in different industrial fields and that there shouldn't be any fucking discrimination at all between genders.  The closest that you could probably get to a "fair inequality" would be the fact that women might have to take an unexpected leave due to pregnancy and I think everyone knows that this is always a possibility, hence the lower paycheck and all of that shit, but really beyond that you're hard pressed to actually give a legitimate reason why men and women can't do the same shit for the same things.


It's common fact that there's a conspiracy against women.


OfflineCyberBully said:


> Unfortunately, it's the extremists in both movements that taint public opinion of them. Both men and women have legitimate issues that need to be addressed, but those often get drowned out by the shrieks of extremists on both sides.


It's for the best because both sides prescribe totalitarian policies in order to achieve their "equality." If either made any _real_ headway, we'd all be screwed.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Nov 27, 2015)

I'm of the Rebecca West type of feminist:  
"I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."  

However, I don't think MRAs give a shit about "men's rights".  They're just butthurt incels trying convince everyone that it's women's fault that they suck.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 27, 2015)

Mrs Paul said:


> I'm of the Rebecca West type of feminist:
> I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.


You can call yourself a Feminist without following the Feminist movement. It's like, you can call yourself a Christian without following the organized religion. Just realize that a lot of ordinary people associate the word 'Feminist' with popular Feminism. Honestly, it's probably better to just call yourself an 'egalitarian' or 'a proponent for equal treatment under the law' and not get lumped in with a movement which so often advocates for the opposite.

I guarantee other people don't think of you like a doormat or prostitute. That is, unless you wear a doormat around your neck or dress like a stripper. People have too much shit going on with their own lives to be thinking about pretty much anyone besides themselves.


Mrs Paul said:


> However, I don't think MRAs give a shit about "men's rights".  They're just butthurt incels trying convince everyone that it's women's fault that they suck.


I hope that is the case because Incels are so much nicer and funnier than political extremists.

Truly, I don't know very much about the Men's Rights movement or what kind of policies it advocates for. I once listened to a podcast where an elderly self-proclaimed MRA who had the mannerisms of a retard claimed the vast majority of murders are committed by women. Other than that, I've only heard MRAs talking about men's issues and the ideal of equality. I've never once heard an MRA say _how_ they're going to achieve this so called equality they talk so much about. So maybe it isn't an authoritarian movement like I assume it is.

Perhaps there are MRA kiwis who could enlighten me on what kind of legislation or judicial decisions the movement advocates for or against specifically. Or maybe MRAs are aimless like hippies. "Peace, man." "Equality, dude."


----------



## Von Clausewitz (Nov 27, 2015)

I harbor the firm belief, that every human being - no matter what kind of gender, social standing, wealth, nationality, race, religion, age, physical and mental disabilities, political beliefs and idiology this person has - has the same potential to be a giant asshole.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 27, 2015)

I always find out what people mean by 'feminism' before I tell them whether I'm a feminist; because it matters.

If 'feminist' is simply someone who believes in gender equality, I'm all on board.  And I don't think I'm alone there; Most people seem to support gender equality.  

But if your feminism also includes rape hysteria, oppression olympics, attacking people with the wrong identity, safe spaces with the exact same traits as an echo chamber..... well, I'm not on board with any of that.  Yet most of what calls itself feminism on the internet winds up being this.  Maybe the best thing for me to tell people is that I support gender equality, but I think of all these things as absolute nonsense.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Nov 28, 2015)

That depends, I personally don't care unless it's too offensive to not ignore. But I'm usually cool with most portrayals of men or women (in fiction, real life is another matter entirely). That's not to say I'm _against_ the idea, but it's not something *I'm* worried about in the long run. It really just depends on what's supposed to be going on in the show/movie/animation/comic/whatever, as well as the character. Like, for example, it's established the character doesn't/can't fight. As such, I don't expect them to do such an action, whether it be male or female. If I notice something wrong with fiction treating one gender better than the other, I blame it on poor storytelling and ignorance of that gender. Or both if it's really bad.

It's when you get to the liberal feminists that I start to get really ticked off. I get it, women need to be treated more equally. And I agree one hundred percent. Just stop shoving it down my throat for the millionth time. That applies to every nutcase who think they're helping the cause when they're really hurting it. Especially the hardcore "Social Justice Whackjobs" on Tumblr. Though I'm sure we can all agree on that part.

As a whole, it's not an easy answer to expect, some people have their opinion, I have mine, you support feminism and equality? Fine, I'm not going to mock you. In fact, I may even agree with you on several points. Unless that opinion is radically offensive for, or against, the idea. Then I'm not going to bother, because I don't swing that way.


----------



## BOLDYSPICY! (Nov 28, 2015)

I am a feminist because I subscribe to the belief that women can do anything men can do, & I pride myself on my ability to do so. I also vote, have a job, am educated, & live independently. That's what feminism is, pure & simple.


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 28, 2015)

Am I the only one who uses the word "feminist" to mean "a person who has studied feminist doctrine and engages in activism based on those principles"?

Also I like the part where y'all think "egalitarian" isn't a loaded word nowadays.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Nov 28, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> Am I the only one who uses the word "feminist" to mean "a person who has studied feminist doctrine and engages in activism based on those principles"?


That means tumblrinas and Andrea Dworkin


----------



## sugoi-chan (Nov 28, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That means tumblrinas and Andrea Dworkin



Doesn't really change what @KingQueen said. It's a broad enough movement to allow for plenty of competing interpretations of the concept and literature.


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 29, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> That means tumblrinas and Andrea Dworkin


Because "reblogging on tumblr" is totally what I meant by "activism". Sure.



sugoi-chan said:


> Doesn't really change what @KingQueen said. It's a broad enough movement to allow for plenty of competing interpretations of the concept and literature.


Yes. This is one of the biggest mistakes by people unfamiliar with feminism; they think feminism is one big homogenous blob instead of a variety of viewpoints with a similar goal (equality/liberation for women). This is why people express confusion and ridicule at supposed feminist hypocrisy, because they think it's the same people saying "men should die!" right after "I love being a slut!"

I really don't think anyone is a feminist who doesn't do the research and the work. Even I'm not a feminist since I'm not doing any sort of activism. You can agree with certain feminist viewpoints, but that isn't the same thing. It's like saying you're a musician without making music or knowing anything about music, but you just like music. Or saying you're a Democrat when you don't know what the politicians believe because you don't even vote.

(And that's not even getting into the problems between people I would consider "real" Feminists.)


----------



## BOLDYSPICY! (Nov 29, 2015)

Mrs Paul said:


> I'm of the Rebecca West type of feminist:
> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."
> 
> However, I don't think MRAs give a shit about "men's rights".  They're just butthurt incels trying convince everyone that it's women's fault that they suck.





KingQueen said:


> Am I the only one who uses the word "feminist" to mean "a person who has studied feminist doctrine and engages in activism based on those principles"?
> 
> Also I like the part where y'all think "egalitarian" isn't a loaded word nowadays.





KingQueen said:


> Because "reblogging on tumblr" is totally what I meant by "activism". Sure.
> 
> 
> Yes. This is one of the biggest mistakes by people unfamiliar with feminism; they think feminism is one big homogenous blob instead of a variety of viewpoints with a similar goal (equality/liberation for women). This is why people express confusion and ridicule at supposed feminist hypocrisy, because they think it's the same people saying "men should die!" right after "I love being a slut!"
> ...


Hear, hear. I'll drink to that.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 29, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> Am I the only one who uses the word "feminist" to mean "a person who has studied feminist doctrine and engages in activism based on those principles"?



What are he principles of feminist doctrine that you live by and what kind of activsm do you do?


----------



## Andy27 (Nov 29, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> Because "reblogging on tumblr" is totally what I meant by "activism". Sure.
> Yes. This is one of the biggest mistakes by people unfamiliar with feminism; they think feminism is one big homogenous blob instead of a variety of viewpoints with a similar goal (equality/liberation for women).



Meh. With the exception of the differences between first wave and the latter waves of feminism, there isn't really a lot of substantial variety between feminist ideologies. Any differences are usually superficial or "procedural" but they all (again, not counting first wave) follow certain principles that restrict feminism as an ideology to specific paths.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 29, 2015)

OfflineCyberBully said:


> Unfortunately, I think a fair amount of MRA hate stems from a knee-jerk reaction against the fact that the more extreme members of the movement essentially want to put women "back in the kitchen" and redefine the female identity solely on the basis of wife/motherhood, just as the common knee-jerk reaction to feminism is that it wants to destroy men. Of course, both these reactions are grounded in a kernel of truth - idiots on the extreme fringes of both movements seem to want exactly that to happen - and the more sensible, moderate elements in both movements get drowned out by the idiocy.


By 'moderate feminists' do you mean individuals who consider themselves feminists but do not identify with the political faction?


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 29, 2015)

Psycho said:


> What are he principles of feminist doctrine that you live by and what kind of activsm do you do?


I sort of answered this: I don't consider myself a feminist because I don't do jack shit. I've read a variety of stuff and am sympathetic towards some of it. If time/health allowed I'd maybe do more.

I think the distinction is important to make because otherwise you get people who know nothing and do nothing talking really loud about what other folks should do. Seems dumb.



Andy27 said:


> Meh. With the exception of the differences between first wave and the latter waves of feminism, there isn't really a lot of substantial variety between feminist ideologies. Any differences are usually superficial or "procedural" but they all (again, not counting first wave) follow certain principles that restrict feminism as an ideology to specific paths.


I completely disagree. Some of the differences are indeed procedural, but those are not superficial and have a huge effect on policy and action-taking. But for ideology, there is a world of difference between, for example, the idea that femininity is a self-damaging learned behavior versus femininity as an innate essence of body or spirit. 



raymond said:


> I find all of the disproportionate hate MRAs get compared to feminists hilarious when they're practically the same thing.


Keyboard warriors are the same thing no matter their politics. Actual activists are not.

Also "disproportionate hate" is laughable. MRAs get tweets that say "die cis scum". How awful for them.


----------



## QI 541 (Nov 29, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> Also "disproportionate hate" is laughable. MRAs get tweets that say "die cis scum". How awful for them.



This entire thread is "Please don't judge all feminists by some crazies.  But all MRAs are loveshy misogynists."


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 29, 2015)

Alberto Balsalm said:


> I don't think it was implied that MRAs face hate _speech _or hate _crimes_, just a lot of negative sentiment.


I thought it was implied that feminists don't get backlash, or rather no backlash that matters. If I misunderstood I apologize.

(I just woke up so I probably sound like an asshole. Apologies I really think Feminism benefits everyone, including men, when applied correctly. Just so I'm being clear on my position.)


----------



## cumrobbery (Nov 29, 2015)

*Feminism!*


----------



## Trombonista (Nov 29, 2015)

TheMightyMonarch said:


> I still use the term "feminist" because I think the core issues are still important. Yeah it's unfortunate that the crazies over the years have tainted the word to most people but I still don't think it's a good reason to abandon the term completely.


I'm the same way. It's like what Michael Bolton from Office Space said about changing his name to Mike: Why should I change it? They're (the SJWs) the ones who suck.

That being said, I don't really care if other people call themselves egalitarian or whatever, I just refuse to drop the feminist label.


----------



## TheProdigalStunna (Nov 29, 2015)

raymond said:


> This entire thread is "Please don't judge all feminists by some crazies.  But all MRAs are loveshy misogynists."


cuz its true


----------



## Vitriol (Nov 30, 2015)

Getting a little off topic. If you want to discuss the burgeoning MRA movement please create a new thread.

i warned that i wanted this thread to stay on topic and any further discussion of mra's to  go in a separate thread. Locking the thread while I create an OP for an MRA thread and do some thread cleaning.

Edited to merge my now double post and to unlock the thread.


----------



## Techpriest (Nov 30, 2015)

Honestly the current wave of feminism needs to die in a fire, it has become a meaningless and hypocritical movement that claims to be for equality for all yet ignores bigger issues in favor of pointless bullshit. I'm sick of all the lying for pity, telling me I'm a potential rapist for being a straight male and should feel bad about it, and also in just how holier than thou they keep fucking act. It's like the movement is becoming generations version of the crazy moralists trying to fight the culture wars for Jesus.

The movement needs to size down and refocus on getting inroads into the third world rather than complaining about micro aggressions and other bullshit issues in the first world.


----------



## Jaimas (Nov 30, 2015)

Techpriest said:


> Honestly the current wave of feminism needs to die in a fire, it has become a meaningless and hypocritical movement that claims to be for equality for all yet ignores bigger issues in favor of pointless bullshit. I'm sick of all the lying for pity, telling me I'm a potential rapist for being a straight male and should feel bad about it, and also in just how holier than thou they keep fucking act. It's like the movement is becoming generations version of the crazy moralists trying to fight the culture wars for Jesus.
> 
> The movement needs to size down and refocus on getting inroads into the third world rather than complaining about micro aggressions and other bullshit issues in the first world.



The part that's a tragedy is that so many wind up in it due to false pretenses. They legit want to help, they want to do good, and they wind up manipulated by these ridiculous assbags. Let us all pause a moment and remember the 16-year-old who was told to doxx and harass a guy for having an opinion contrary to her own if she wanted to be a good feminist. This kid probably didn't mean to cause any harm, but she wound up so whipped up by them that she went and did something like this. 

It's the same kind of shit we saw with Vade's internet-based version of stochastic harassment, where she'd stir her followers up into a self-righteous frenzy, get them to attack someone she didn't like, and if they overstepped or it was traced back to her, she'd deny culpability entirely. Pretty much the entirety of the "movement" of Social Justice is like this, with a few ideologues stoking the fire as well-meaning but misguided individuals are dragged along for the ride. Disagree with them? You're a racist/rapist/bigot/shitlord/insert term here.

But the thing is - each time we see something like this, it's a teachable moment. People are waking up and seeing this for what it is. 

And the key thing they're realizing, perhaps most importantly of all, is thus:

This _isn't_ about feminism. Not really. 

These people _claim_ it is, but they do so solely to deflect criticism. It's not coincidence that the self-proclaimed leaders of this crazy shortbus are all, almost to a man, as oppressive as what they claim to oppose - they claim to be part of it solely because it wins them easy victories, and enables them to play the privilege/oppression card. They fucking _co-opted_ that term - the same way that so many other groups with similar agendas co-opted other things that were otherwise good. It's happened to both political parties throughout history and it'll happen again long after we are all dead. Our parents and their parents fought these same shitheels at different points in history, from the moral majority to book censors to the people claiming the Jazz was going to send your soul to El Diablo. And because people project what is truest about themselves, we can see that they claim other groups, similarly diverse are monolithic opponents of everything they hold dear (because it's what they're trying to do).

It's all about control and the pathological need to say what's good or bad, and in this regard, they're just the latest wave of a recurring nemesis that our forebears mocked the same way we do.

And because of that, take heart, Kiwis: _These assholes will lose, every single time._


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 30, 2015)

Alberto Balsalm said:


> Do you think feminists just stormed in one day, staged a coup, and started passing laws? The reason they managed to create change in the first place is that activists gradually swayed public opinion in favor of certain reforms.


The dumb rating was because I feel you are repeating a lie which contemporary political feminists, who advocate for totalistic and sexually discriminatory laws, tell in order to justify that they're above other people and therefore righteous anyways.

I disagree because in my opinion social movements are a byproduct of public opinion, not the other way around. Cultural advancement is part of the natural ebb and flow of life which results from changing individual life circumstances. Individuals make conclusions themselves when the time is right or if it is personally expedient. Progress does not depend on any organization telling people what they should think. If what the organization has to say isn't personally expedient, a person doesn't want to hear it. If what the organization has to say is personally expedient, a person already came to that conclusion.

The Feminists had absolutely nothing to do with the social change, and I say the same thing of any group which has ever been given credit for such a thing. Feminism was a political faction, a result of the new way of thinking, and a part of the natural progression. This is just the way I see it.

I should make it clear that every time I've mentioned "Feminism" or "Feminists", I was referring to the contemporary political faction. My view (based on what I've seen all over the Internet) was that most people who considered themselves "moderate feminists" identified with the political faction to some extent.

Perhaps I was mistaken all along: most of these loudmouths who call themselves "moderates" (not here, I mean across the Internet) are in actuality the extremists. The truth is that "moderate feminism" has absolutely nothing to do with that political faction.

Am I or am I not finally getting it?


----------



## Meowthkip (Nov 30, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> I should make it clear that every time I've mentioned "Feminism" or "Feminists", I was referring to the contemporary political faction. My view (based on what I've seen all over the Internet) was that most people who considered themselves "moderate feminists" identified with the political faction to some extent.
> 
> Perhaps I was mistaken all along: most of these loudmouths who call themselves "moderates" (not here, I mean across the Internet) are in actuality the extremists. The truth is that "moderate feminism" has absolutely nothing to do with that political faction.
> 
> Am I or am I not finally getting it?



There's multiple contemporary factions, or "waves." You seem to be talking about third-wave feminists.

Perhaps you should actually do some research so you know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Sanae Kochiya (Nov 30, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> My view (based on what I've seen all over the Internet)


I encourage you to cite your sources, because the Internet is simultaneously the most and least reliable source of information available.


----------



## Andy27 (Nov 30, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> I completely disagree. Some of the differences are indeed procedural, *but those are not superficial and have a huge effect on policy and action-taking. *But for ideology, there is a world of difference between, for example, the idea that femininity is a self-damaging learned behavior versus femininity as an innate essence of body or spirit.



Fair enough but my point is that whatever diversity different feminist ideological strands have exists within a narrow ideological spectrum adhering to specific parameters, namely that:
1) It allows for, encourages and even demands excessive social engineering, almost always (if not always) including by the government
2) It presupposes that gender equality is achieved by prioritizing and adopting a woman-centric approach (not in the sense of necessarily focusing on women but in the sense of always adopting a woman's (general "woman's") point of view as more important / truthful)

(1) alone disqualifies any "right-wing" ideologies from feminism. Most people belonging to (other) far-leftist ideologies (communists, anarchists) would also be disqualified since they would mostly see the issues raised as unimportant in the grand scheme of things. And from the rest (centre-left and left-wing), only a certain amount of people would accept (2) as true

From the viewpoint of someone who disagrees with both (1) and (2), differences between feminist ideologies aren't really that important, it's the same thing with different "dressing"

(Again, the above does not include First-Wave Feminism into the definition of Feminism)


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Nov 30, 2015)

I used to run under that title when it meant "equality" and I would deny the misandrists who called themselves feminists or feminazis as they used to be called. Then there were the people opposed to feminism who absolutely insisted that those people were the only ones worthy of being called feminists & anyone less extreme than that didn't count.

I could not hold back the tide of autistic rage that was this movement & had to abandon ship.


----------



## PeteyCoffee (Nov 30, 2015)

Meowthkip said:


> There's multiple contemporary factions, or "waves." You seem to be talking about third-wave feminists.
> 
> Perhaps you should actually do some research so you know what the hell you're talking about.


Are you telling me the majority of feminists would denounce Sarkeesian? Because I've rarely if ever seen that happen. In fact, most of the feminists I've read or talked to outside of this forum have expressed solidarity with the same totalistic views I have a serious problem with, usually somewhat modestly, but that's still being an advocate.

I am honestly skeptical that most contemporary feminists aren't like that. It's hard for me to buy that a minority has this much of a voice above all the others. I mean, I get that the media backs this so called minority. But that doesn't explain decentralized places like tumblr, which appear almost unanimously in support of the mainstream variation of "feminism".

Admittedly, I never was an avid tumblr user, so perhaps my perspective on it is simply inaccurate. All I know is most of the time I've gone there the people reposting porn were also reposting SJW bullshit, and it seriously got in the way.


Sanae Kochiya said:


> I encourage you to cite your sources, because the Internet is simultaneously the most and least reliable source of information available.


Admittedly, I have no sources. It's just the vibe I've gotten from most of the feminists I've read or talked to over the years.

Could you link me one popular feminist who does not advocate for any of the following: censorship, slut-shaming, legal discrimination between the sexes, literal segregation, the idea that women are weak and need to be treated differently, the idea that men are repressed rapists, etc? I mean, I'm sure there are some, it's just that I personally have never come across one. And I don't know if that's because the majority of contemporary feminists are crazy or if that's because I've only visited fringe online feminist communities and talked to SJW college students.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Nov 30, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Admittedly, I have no sources. It's just the vibe I've gotten from most of the feminists I've read or talked to over the years.
> 
> Could you link me one popular feminist who does not advocate for any of the following: censorship, slut-shaming, legal discrimination between the sexes, literal segregation, the idea that women are weak and need to be treated differently, the idea that men are repressed rapists, etc? I mean, I'm sure there are some, it's just that I personally have never come across one. And I don't know if that's because the majority of contemporary feminists are crazy or if that's because I've only visited fringe online feminist communities and talked to SJW college students.



I would like to say "vocal minority" but that's rather optimistic.


----------



## Meowthkip (Nov 30, 2015)

PeteyCoffee said:


> Are you telling me the majority of feminists would denounce Sarkeesian? Because I've rarely if ever seen that happen. In fact, most of the feminists I've read or talked to outside of this forum have expressed solidarity with the same totalistic views I have a serious problem with, usually somewhat modestly, but that's still being an advocate.
> 
> I am honestly skeptical that most contemporary feminists aren't like that. It's hard for me to buy that a minority has this much of a voice above all the others. I mean, I get that the media backs this so called minority. But that doesn't explain decentralized places like tumblr, which appear almost unanimously in support of the mainstream variation of "feminism".
> 
> Admittedly, I never was an avid tumblr user, so perhaps my perspective on it is simply inaccurate. All I know is most of the time I've gone there the people reposting porn were also reposting SJW bullshit, and it seriously got in the way.



I'm merely pointing out that there are different schools of thought within the movement. Sarkeesian herself is a divisive figure, as she skews more second-wave with her disdain for pornography and sexualized images of women, yet she has a ton of support from SJWs, who tend to be more third wave. But there's also third-wavers (sex positive feminists) who criticize her somewhat puritanical views on sexualizing women in media, and find it insulting that she's so bothered by women dressing up all sexy.

There's a lot more fracturing going on than those on the outside might notice, with the most radical, authoritarian types being the loudest. I think you'll find a lot more women who either used to call themselves feminists but have distanced themselves from the title, or women who are egalitarian types, which is basically just a way of saying "I agree with the ideals of feminism but I don't want to be a part of the community." I'd argue the number of people disillusioned by the current trend of SJW culture is pretty big, but most people prefer not to speak up lest they make themselves a target, including feminists.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Nov 30, 2015)

Meowthkip said:


> I'm merely pointing out that there are different schools of thought within the movement. Sarkeesian herself is a divisive figure, as she skews more second-wave with her disdain for pornography and sexualized images of women, yet she has a ton of support from SJWs, who tend to be more third wave. But there's also third-wavers (sex positive feminists) who criticize her somewhat puritanical views on sexualizing women in media, and find it insulting that she's so bothered by women dressing up all sexy.
> 
> There's a lot more fracturing going on than those on the outside might notice, with the most radical, authoritarian types being the loudest. I think you'll find a lot more women who either used to call themselves feminists but have distanced themselves from the title, or women who are egalitarian types, which is basically just a way of saying "I agree with the ideals of feminism but I don't want to be a part of the community." I'd argue the number of people disillusioned by the current trend of SJW culture is pretty big, but most people prefer not to speak up lest they make themselves a target, including feminists.



The biggest problem I find is that the feminists opposed to the current wave or whatever don't speak up loud enough. If there's behavior in your movement that's unacceptable you can't just lay down and take it.


----------



## sugoi-chan (Nov 30, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The biggest problem I find is that the feminists opposed to the current wave or whatever don't speak up loud enough. If there's behavior in your movement that's unacceptable you can't just lay down and take it.



Plenty do if you look for it. Liana Kerzner wrote a pretty long piece taking Sarkeesian to task and identifies as a feminist. I remember, back when GG was first getting going and I was investigating it to see what all the hoopla was, there were plenty of people saying "I'm a feminist but I disagree with ____".

I disagree with the assumption though that any -ism as broad and storied as feminism is is one monolithic movement and it's the responsibility of the moderates to bring the extreme ends in line - especially when those extremes have beaucoup media bucks and a pretty big bully pulpit. I think it's fairer to ask people listening to not brush everyone who identifies as x-ism with the same brush, much in the way you see plenty of moderate Christians ask not to be identified as gay hating Bible thumpers.


----------



## Red_Rager (Nov 30, 2015)

sugoi-chan said:


> Plenty do if you look for it. Liana Kerzner wrote a pretty long piece taking Sarkeesian to task and identifies as a feminist. I remember, back when GG was first getting going and I was investigating it to see what all the hoopla was, there were plenty of people saying "I'm a feminist but I disagree with ____".
> 
> I disagree with the assumption though that any -ism as broad and storied as feminism is is one monolithic movement and it's the responsibility of the moderates to bring the extreme ends in line - especially when those extremes have beaucoup media bucks and a pretty big bully pulpit. I think it's fairer to ask people listening to not brush everyone who identifies as x-ism with the same brush, much in the way you see plenty of moderate Christians ask not to be identified as gay hating Bible thumpers.


Don't forget Base Mom AKA Christina Hoff, Sarah Haidar, and Cathy Young.  One way to find moderates is to take a look at who the loony toons consider halal and see what the infidels actually have to say for yourself.


----------



## KingQueen (Nov 30, 2015)

Andy27 said:


> Fair enough but my point is that whatever diversity different feminist ideological strands have exists within a narrow ideological spectrum adhering to specific parameters, namely that:
> 1) It allows for, encourages and even demands excessive social engineering, almost always (if not always) including by the government
> 2) It presupposes that gender equality is achieved by prioritizing and adopting a woman-centric approach (not in the sense of necessarily focusing on women but in the sense of always adopting a woman's (general "woman's") point of view as more important / truthful)
> 
> ...



I started typic up a more detailed reply but it got super long, and it's mostly a semantic thing. Let me know if you want it. 

The short version is I agree with you politically, I think. Separatism is unsustainable and the concept that equality will happen by focusing on one subgroup is illogical. It's one of several reasons I'm reticent to call myself Feminist.

However, that's in terms of ideology. In terms of methodology and practical application of ideology, I think that for *individuals* and small groups having a focus is key to getting shit done. You need to pick a focus in activism and set specific goals, and if you feel women is your focus, then that's your thing. Just because you're campaigning, say, for trafficked girls, doesn't mean you don't give a fuck about trafficked boys. As an individual you can prioritize whatever you want. But the idea of "prioritizing" means for a lot of people "until equality becomes a habit" rather than "at the expense of others".

I think this is where it branches into a larger social issue outside feminism, which is a big push to turn everything into a moral judgement. Nobody is allowed to disagree, and if you ever made any tiny mistake YOU ARE DISGUSTING DIE IN A FIRE. There's nobody going "well I'm egalitarian but feminists have some similar goals so let's work together" it's "you're a bigot-in-denial and the antichrist". I think this attitude is actively harmful. Like this latest with the Sufferagettes being "racist" because their particular voting campaign benefited the middle-class white woman. It's incorrect to say they were ignoring non-white women and a lie to say they were bigoted.

But anyway, this is what I mean by ideology versus interpretation, and what I mean to say is the difference between groups. Some feminists are not woman-centric ideologically but use "feminism" as synonymous with "equality", some feminists are only woman-centric in terms of their activities and focus...and of those who hold true to a woman-centric ideology, some of them mean "kill all men" but some just really believe centerism will benefit everyone in the end. I think this is the part where "anti-feminisim" is a problem, because they don't recognize that two opposite actions might come from ostensibly the same ideology, nor that two similar actions might come from opposing viewpoints. Nobody remember the anti-abortion bra-burners.

(note: I haven't read any other replies yet, got busy with work)


----------



## Mecha-Lenin (Nov 30, 2015)

I consider myself a feminist. The simplest way to put that is that I support full women's liberation from the double standards imposed upon them by a society which has depended on women just as much as it has men, but where men have always had disproportionate political and economic influence (within and outside the home).

To me feminism also means fighting for the liberation of men from standards imposed upon them. While it is true that men have always had more political power, men also suffer from arbitary cultural norms they don't consciously choose (often pushing them to be stoic, "independent", "breadwinners", etc.).

That is what feminism means to me in a nutshell.

There is alot of scholarly work in feminism which I learned about in college... and is where I first became most familiar with the philosophies and arguments behind feminism. Naturally, I am inclined to think about _that _rather than _tumblr _when I hear the word "feminism". But I suppose we all have our own experiences now don't we?

EDIT: Naturally, I refer to myself as "a feminist" in the context of this discussion. This should not be construed to mean that I identify with it in every waking moment, nor that I identify _only _with it. However, it is an important aspect of my overall worldview.

EDIT 2: I think it would also be valuable to note that the version of feminism I just proffered is very coincident with modern struggles for LGBTQ equality. Actually, I believe the goals of feminism and LGBTQ rights are largely the same.


----------



## WWWWolf (Dec 1, 2015)

Techpriest said:


> Honestly the current wave of feminism needs to die in a fire, it has become a meaningless and hypocritical movement that claims to be for equality for all yet ignores bigger issues in favor of pointless bullshit. I'm sick of all the lying for pity, telling me I'm a potential rapist for being a straight male and should feel bad about it, and also in just how holier than thou they keep fucking act. It's like the movement is becoming generations version of the crazy moralists trying to fight the culture wars for Jesus.
> 
> The movement needs to size down and refocus on getting inroads into the third world rather than complaining about micro aggressions and other bullshit issues in the first world.


This is basically the same problem a lot of movements face these days. If you actually go out and look at what people are doing to promote social equality, you don't really need to look too far. (For example, I'm all for making information technology and other fields of science more accessible for everyone. You can find a lot of interesting programs that aim that. Just that few of them are something that get mentioned often in public.)

...annnnd then there's the Internet. Want to take part in the public discussion? _Think twice_.

I guess it's kind of like Linux and the open source ecosystem. Hey, it's an undisputed fact that Linux is going strong - people are developing absolutely amazing open source software that is used by millions of people worldwide directly and majority of people around the world indirectly without even realising it.
...and our public face is a 12-year-old who installed Ubunty last week, installed Arch Linux yesterday because he's a GURU now, and is about to join some forum tomorrow to tell people not to use any "Micro$oft" products evar.


----------



## Andy27 (Dec 2, 2015)

KingQueen said:


> I started typic up a more detailed reply but it got super long, and it's mostly a semantic thing. Let me know if you want it.



I think semantics are important in discussions about feminism because most definitions have a different meaning in feminist contexts compared to every-day use. If you want to post it, I will read it.

In any case, I will respond to a couple of things here and for convenience's sake I will split your post in smaller quotes to address each point separately.



> The short version is I agree with you politically, I think. Separatism is unsustainable and the concept that equality will happen by focusing on one subgroup is illogical. It's one of several reasons I'm reticent to call myself Feminist.
> 
> However, that's in terms of ideology. In terms of methodology and practical application of ideology, I think that for *individuals* and small groups having a focus is key to getting shit done. You need to pick a focus in activism and set specific goals, and if you feel women is your focus, then that's your thing. Just because you're campaigning, say, for trafficked girls, doesn't mean you don't give a fuck about trafficked boys. As an individual you can prioritize whatever you want. But the idea of "prioritizing" means for a lot of people "until equality becomes a habit" rather than "at the expense of others".



I fully agree 100% that, in order to get shit done, people can (and even should) focus on specific issues. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group focusing on trafficked girls only without bringing in any ideological beliefs and anyone complaining about specific groups / individuals doing that and not focusing on trafficked boys as well is, in my opinion, incredibly petty.

What I was trying to point out is that when you have a fully woman-centric (with the definition of woman-centric given in previous posts) ideology (feminism), and when that ideology completely dominates the gender-equality field (as it currently happens), then you are going to inevitably end-up with 99,99% of groups targeting women while men's issues like FTM domestic violence, males being the majority of the victims of violence and males being 80% of homeless people are ignored (as it also currently happens).

This is a direct effect of feminism and the popularity of the ideology, especially in certain areas (academia). It is perfectly in line with the core beliefs of feminism as described in the most basic theories and ideologies from which all feminist ideological strands diversify from.



> I think this is where it branches into a larger social issue outside feminism, which is a big push to turn everything into a moral judgement. Nobody is allowed to disagree, and if you ever made any tiny mistake YOU ARE DISGUSTING DIE IN A FIRE. *There's nobody going "well I'm egalitarian but feminists have some similar goals so let's work together" it's "you're a bigot-in-denial and the antichrist"*. I think this attitude is actively harmful. Like this latest with the Sufferagettes being "racist" because their particular voting campaign benefited the middle-class white woman. It's incorrect to say they were ignoring non-white women and a lie to say they were bigoted.



An egalitarian and a feminist wouldn't have similar goals (they both claim the same thing but they interpret it very differently - unless we are talking about a "final" state of absolute equality but since such state is either never going to happen or if it does happen it will happen in  many years from now, it is in my opinion irrelevant). There might be the occasional, accidental overlap between goals but nothing more.



> But anyway, this is what I mean by ideology versus interpretation, and what I mean to say is the difference between groups*. Some feminists are not woman-centric ideologically but use "feminism" as synonymous with "equality", some feminists are only woman-centric in terms of their activities and focus*...and of those who hold true to a woman-centric ideology, some of them mean "kill all men" but some just really believe centerism will benefit everyone in the end. I think this is the part where "anti-feminisim" is a problem, because they don't recognize that two opposite actions might come from ostensibly the same ideology, nor that two similar actions might come from opposing viewpoints.



I disagree here. Yes, some self-described feminists use feminism as a synonym with equality* but feminists who use the common-use meaning of equality (which is "both genders should be treated equally" not "women should be treated equally to men" - you can see the implied difference of the latter from the former) don't actually adhere to any feminist ideology. And yes most of feminists who are ideologically woman-centric have convinced themselves that woman-centric ideologies are equality but that doesn't change the effects their ideology has on society.

Individuals calling themselves feminists without ascribing to feminist beliefs don't alter the core ideologies of feminism (unless those individuals become the norm but that isn't happening any time soon so all they do is providing "cover" for an ideology they don't actually subscribe to)

*although it should be noted that almost all feminists do that but most of them have a different interpretation of equality than the usual



> *Nobody remember the anti-abortion bra-burners.*
> (note: I haven't read any other replies yet, got busy with work)



I have isolated this sentence because I find it interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in the end the rational side of feminism will prevail and the result will be good because the fanatics will be put aside since this is what happened in the past.

I disagree with the above and there are plenty of contradictory examples. Just to bring one up it was feminism who designated in the 70's, and still supports in many cases, "domestic violence" as a "gender issue" with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims, ignoring a sizable portion of victims. This is still in effect because of modern feminists' unwillingness to go against the interests of women to achieve equality.

And then you also have the worst effect of all which I mentioned earlier:



> when you have a fully woman-centric (with the definition of woman-centric given in previous posts) ideology (feminism), and when that ideology completely dominates the gender-equality field (as it currently happens), then you are going to inevitably end-up with 99,99% of groups targeting women



...which is already a view dominating society (at least in the "gender equality" field) and it is not going away any time soon.


----------



## Megahertz (Dec 3, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The biggest problem I find is that the feminists opposed to the current wave or whatever don't speak up loud enough. If there's behavior in your movement that's unacceptable you can't just lay down and take it.



Usually modern second wave fems are radfems, and radical feminists when compared to liberal feminists (3rd wave) are a much smaller group. The radical feminist movement which peaked in the 70s has come and passed, and the women who were feminists back then no longer care, generally. They're all old now. 

So then its left to modern radfems who are usually millennials, some gen X. And there are far, far fewer of them. 

It should be worth mentioning that the media also skews heavily third-wave.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 14, 2016)

According to the definition of feminist used by some academics I would be considered one because I am supportive of men and women having equal legal rights and obligations. I think the draft criticisms are simply not valid because during WWII women did contribute to the war effort albeit not with a formal draft and all other wars in which the draft was used simply were not total wars and as a result the government would probably have just chose not to draft women anyways (draft is the government choosing to draft someone in order to help the war effort rather than an automatic process)

If this were the only qualifying feature of being a feminist then I would be one and so would the vast majority of people worldwide. So much so that the label itself would become meaningless and as a result there would be no reason to apply the label to oneself.

However this is not how the label is applied in reality. If I were to be optimistic about it I would simply say that it is academics using academic definitions of their words despite popular usage being otherwise. If I were to look at it more cynically I would say that it is a calculated ruse where feminists claim that everyone is a feminist with an extremely vague definition for feminism in order to get them to identify as feminists at which point they swap out the old definition of feminism for the real definition that reveals the true sinister nature of the movement now that the initiates are trapped in it.

Either way I do not see a reason to identify as a feminist but in the former case I still feel sympathetic to it


----------



## Jaimas (May 15, 2016)

My favorite feminist Kiwi is @BOLDYSPICY!, because she's not afraid to punch a bitch.


----------



## AnOminous (May 15, 2016)

I've probably said this before, but if "feminist" means I think women are structurally disadvantaged, that this is a bad thing, and we should fix it, then I'm definitely a feminist.

It's just too bad feminist now means total cuck.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 15, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> I've probably said this before, but if "feminist" means I think women are structurally disadvantaged, that this is a bad thing, and we should fix it, then I'm definitely a feminist.
> 
> It's just too bad feminist now means total cuck.


Can you give some evidence for the structural disadvantage?


----------



## Joan Nyan (May 15, 2016)

I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 15, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.


Were women disadvantaged in 1970? I usually place the time in which there was gender equality at 1920 when they gained the ability to vote


----------



## Joan Nyan (May 15, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Were women disadvantaged in 1970? I usually place the time in which there was gender equality at 1920 when they gained the ability to vote


Maybe not in the 70s but women weren't guaranteed equal pay and equal employment rights until the mid 60s.


----------



## AnOminous (May 15, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.



Women in the Middle East actually still exist, you know.  They're not mythical.

Oddly, "feminists" in the West don't seem to give a fuck about these actually existing women, though.


----------



## Joan Nyan (May 15, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> Women in the Middle East actually still exist, you know.  They're not mythical.


I meant to say "are actually oppressed", sorry.


AnOminous said:


> Oddly, "feminists" in the West don't seem to give a fuck about these actually existing women, though.


Exactly my point.


----------



## AnOminous (May 15, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> I meant to say "are actually oppressed", sorry.
> 
> Exactly my point.



Is it, though?  

When I say I'm a feminist, I mean that I actually really do care about the welfare and quality of life of the gender that constitutes an actual majority of the human race.

And by that I don't mean that I'm an idiotic cuck who just automatically agrees with any retarded bullshit some whore says.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 15, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Maybe not in the 70s but women weren't guaranteed equal pay and equal employment rights until the mid 60s.


I don't know whether to say anything on that. My gut response is to say that the free market was taking care of it and creating a more efficient outcome than the one artificially created through feminism but it is quite possible that we simply went from a surplus of domestic labour to a shortage


----------



## Ariel (May 15, 2016)




----------



## on a serious note (May 15, 2016)

I'm a feminist. I don't really let the people on tumblr define my own politics. If people are confused because of tumblr I just tell them that I'm a second-wave feminist. Which isn't entirely true because I realize that race and socioeconomic factors intersect with sexism and I'm really big on environmental justice, but whatever.

It was literally only a couple generations ago that women were not able to vote, and I'm not really sure why a bunch of people today seem to act like it was ancient history. I do think we need to work a bit harder on calling out the crazy in our own movement.


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (May 15, 2016)

I'm a feminist, but more or less a libertarian feminist. I'm heavily cynical of both the second and third-waves of feminism (since it's pretty much left-wing crazies hijacking a movement that was aimed to give women equal rights to men and it is less of a woman's right's movement and more of another liberal/Democrat movement these days). I do believe that third-wave feminism has definitely isolated a lot of women (_*especially*_ if the woman is conservative or right-leaning libertarian), because the intertwining of left-wing/Democratic politics and the feminist movement has pretty much catered the feminist movement to only give a shit about women if they are left-wing/liberal/Democrat/Marxist, which has really tainted the feminist movement.


----------



## NG 070 (May 15, 2016)

DirkBloodStormKing said:


> I'm a feminist, but more or less a libertarian feminist. I'm heavily cynical of both the second and third-waves of feminism (since it's pretty much left-wing crazies hijacking a movement that was aimed to give women equal rights to men and it is less of a woman's right's movement and more of another liberal/Democrat movement these days). I do believe that third-wave feminism has definitely isolated a lot of women (_*especially*_ if the woman is conservative or right-leaning libertarian), because the intertwining of left-wing/Democratic politics and the feminist movement has pretty much catered the feminist movement to only give a shit about women if they are left-wing/liberal/Democrat/Marxist, which has really tainted the feminist movement.



This pretty much sums me up as well. I consider myself a feminist, but the third-wave has alienated me from openly identifying as such. For a variety of reasons (none of which I will get into here, because they're loaded subjects), because they shun and exclude anyone who doesn't match their arbitrary requirement check boxes, and -this is the big one- because I _don't_ believe in tearing men down to build women up.

Absolutely any inequalities and issues concerning women can _and_ should be addressed. But resorting to ad hominem and all the manner of tactics the third-wave feminists use isn't going to win people over or persuade them to look at the bigger picture where women are concerned. I get that for some, it stems from some deep, personal wounds. None the less, I feel we must work on building each other up, because division only breeds further hostility and nobody wins in the end.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 15, 2016)

I think I would be considered a feminist because I am against the demonization of female gender roles in modern society


----------



## RV 229 (May 15, 2016)

I personally find feminism to be obsolete. There's no rights men have (in the U.S. anyways) that women don't, and the only "issues" feminists bring up anymore are just the result of people being assholes or doing things that are already illegal. I respect what feminism did in the past, but I see no need for advocacy of women's rights when women aren't lacking any in the first place.


----------



## NG 070 (May 15, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I think I would be considered a feminist because I am against the demonization of female gender roles in modern society



Same. 

On a similar note, I hate that women who choose -_choose_- to be mothers are made out to be garbage by some third-wavers. There is nothing wrong with not wanting kids, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to have kids, either. That's not getting into the whole "career mom vs. stay at home mom" debate, but that's an entirely _different_ thread for another time/place.


----------



## Magnum Dong (May 15, 2016)

I don't often openly identify as a feminist, but I generally believe in intersectional feminism. 

Some feelings/opinions I have: Any feminism that tries to make blanket statements about "all women experience [x] in the same way" is bad feminism. Liberal/"white" feminism doesn't consider a broad enough range of perspectives and is really only useful for relatively unoppressed women. Radical feminism is too transphobic and sex-negative for my own comfort. I don't buy into the idea that anyone who thinks men and women are equal is a feminist by default. I don't think feminism should ignore the needs of people who don't identify with the label. Although I think feminism can and should be welcoming to the needs of men, I immediately distrust most vocally sex-positive male feminists. "Weaponized femininity" is a crock of shit which pretends conforming to traditional beauty roles is empowering, and it serves to allow women to praise themselves for doing nothing.


----------



## Save Goober (May 15, 2016)

Magnum Dong said:


> it serves to allow women to praise themselves for doing nothing.


On that note, I really hate how some feminists try to push that anything women do with their lives is awesome and respectable. Awhile back there was some athlete who made a comment about "do-nothing bitches" and "instagram models," and a bunch of bloggers and instagram models got really offended about how that's putting down women and their careers need to be respected.
Sorry, it's just not. I think a lot of the "careers" these women choose are fucking jokes. Being an instagram model is doubly a joke. If you have a guy that sits around at home all day doing nothing but occasionally cleaning and posting on the internet he's correctly called a deadbeat hipster, but if you're a woman it's somehow a career worthy of respect. I think it's nice if you and your husband have that agreement and you're able to do what you want that makes you both happy, but I won't respect you as much as a woman who is an engineer, or a police officer, or really anything that isn't lazy as fuck. It's not the 1800s when people were milking cows and scrubbing laundry by hand, cleaning your two bedroom house really isn't a full time job and I know that your makeup tutorials aren't making shit (see foreverkailyn). But if you dare tell some bitch who's complaining about she never has any money to, you know, _get a fucking job_, it's antifeminist and shaming her sacred choices.


----------



## WWWWolf (May 16, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.


This has actually always been a really weird argument. The only people who actually care about the oppression of women in Middle East are feminists and feminist organisations working on those problems. They have _a lot_ of work to do. Props to them. If you're really concerned about oppression of women in Middle East, please contribute to the organisations who do this kind of work.

As for me? I'd like to be realistic about what I can personally do about anything. I don't want to be a random raving Tumblr slacktivist. I'd rather focus on what I can actually realistically do in a competent manner. Which is also why I'm not exactly super-enthusiastic about publicly identifying as a feminist at every turn, because, goodness gracious, people might confuse me for an _activist_ when I'm anything but.

I think the "what have YOU done to further YOUR ideological cause?" kind of questions are counterproductive and only lead to pointless fights. They're kind of like "what, you don't like this film/book/video game/whatever? Well, I'd like to see _you_ try make a better one" argument. That's ultimately asking people to apply skills _you know they don't have _(and which _you know kind of miss the point_), and if you think people going out to do things they're not competent at does any good to the world, you're probably a bit confused.

Supporting an ideology and engaging in activism to further it are completely different things.


----------



## Psycho (May 19, 2016)

Feminism makes a lot more sense if you read the works of Andrea Dworkin and realize she's batshit crazy.  Take her influences out and, suddenly, ridiculous "activists" like Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian or Rebecca Watson would never be able to call themselves feminists.  

The irony is that most modern feminists reject Dworkin because she was transphobic and against pornography, but modern feminism is supportive of transsexuals and pornography.  Thing is, those are the only two differences between modern feminism and Dworkin; the crazy, angry, hate-fueled delusions, the professional victimhood, the ability to interpret everything as patriarchy, those are Dworkin traits that are still carrying over.


----------



## AnOminous (May 19, 2016)

Psycho said:


> Feminism makes a lot more sense if you read the works of Andrea Dworkin and realize she's batshit crazy.  Take her influences out and, suddenly, ridiculous "activists" like Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian or Rebecca Watson would never be able to call themselves feminists.



Catherine MacKinnon is pretty nuts, too, if less shriekingly, obviously insane.


----------



## YI 457 (May 19, 2016)

Ariel said:


>



"Porn is the theory. Rape is the practice." I'd wear a tshirt with that while working in the porn industry.


----------



## Psycho (May 19, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> Catherine MacKinnon is pretty nuts, too, if less shriekingly, obviously insane.


Dworkin took McKinnon's crazy and up'd it by a factor of ten.

That being said, I have to acknowledge why Dworkin and her brand of feminism has been so influential.  You tend to draw attention to yourself when you're a crazy, shrieking, blob of a man-hating banshee.  It's why the extremes of any group tend to draw attention to themselves, both from outsiders and from those within their group.  I just wish that feminists, when paying attention to her, considered a cautionary tale of how not to be a feminist.


----------



## AnOminous (May 19, 2016)

Psycho said:


> It's why the extremes of any group tend to draw attention to themselves, both from outsiders and from those within their group.



Not just from outsiders in general, but specifically from opponents of the group.  If you're opposing a group, you seek out the craziest, most extreme members of the group you're opposing and want to damage, and then claim they're the typical average representative of that group.  This serves two purposes.  One, you might be successful, and in that case, the public decides that the group is utterly insane, as its core ideology is the nuttiest shit you could find.  The other is you can set off infighting in the group, as moderate members seek to disavow the crazies.

The ratio of normies-to-crazies really has a lot to do with which social dynamic takes hold.  And unfortunately, if a group is specifically trying to promote tolerance, it perversely encourages malignant crazies to take up residence and become the _actual_ leaders of the group, whereupon they predictably fly it into a building screaming allahu akbar or something similar.


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Jun 3, 2016)

Although tbf porn is p bad for other reasons outside of feminism and stuff like that

I think that basically everybody is a feminist in some way or another. Unless you literally hate women, you're probably a feminist, tbh.


----------



## Anchuent Christory (Jun 3, 2016)

I don't refer to myself as either a feminist or an atheist, despite technically being both. It's because, to me,  both these things are a "default" state in my mind, as in you are until you decide you believe otherwise (or arguably had the choice made for you by your upbringing)

Does that make sense? I dunno.

Basically I don't feel the need to declare myself either of these things any more than i feel the need to declare myself a human.


----------



## StarvingAutist (Jun 4, 2016)

Fuck identitarianism. Human beings are human beings and should be treated with humanity.


----------



## Cucumber (Jun 4, 2016)

I consider a lot of feminism to have too many similarities to my Catholic upbringing. My thought is "if I took issue with this coming from a nun, why wouldn't I take issue with this coming from anyone else?" Particularly the idea that men were all predators, with no ability to control those sinful urges, and the "you must be in this group to be moral." I didn't find those teachings to sit well with me at all.
There's too much baggage that comes with the label, and why should I give myself a label associated with a movement I would have a very hard time getting along with in the first place? I don't feel like adding to what will just end up as more arguments. It's just not for me.


----------



## Abethedemon (Jun 4, 2016)

Cucumber said:


> I consider a lot of feminism to have too many similarities to my Catholic upbringing. My thought is "if I took issue with this coming from a nun, why wouldn't I take issue with this coming from anyone else?" Particularly the idea that men were all predators, with no ability to control those sinful urges, and the "you must be in this group to be moral." I didn't find those teachings to sit well with me at all.
> There's too much baggage that comes with the label, and why should I give myself a label associated with a movement I would have a very hard time getting along with in the first place? I don't feel like adding to what will just end up as more arguments. It's just not for me.


I would agree. I feel like there are a lot of aspects of feminism which seem somewhat close to religion, in how there is somewhat of a dress code for priestly classes (dying hair), rituals, processions, saints, martyrs, technical terms (privilege), the list goes on.
I guess I prefer the real thing when it comes to religion.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't think that the word "feminist" is necessary but I probably would call myself a difference feminist or a pro life feminist. Considering that I actually think that the denial of gender roles (as well as the presence of harmful traditional ones) harms women and I want to fix that I might be considered to actually be a feminist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_feminism


----------



## Joan Nyan (Jul 19, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I don't think that the word "feminist" is necessary but I probably would call myself a difference feminist or a pro life feminist. Considering that I actually think that the denial of gender roles (as well as the presence of harmful traditional ones) harms women and I want to fix that I might be considered to actually be a feminist
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_feminism


I would be a freedom feminist which doesn't have a Wikipedia page but Christina Hoff Sommers explains it well




Basically men and women should all have the same opportunities but we should respect that men and women will make different choices so it's not necessarily a problem if there's very few female engineers or male nurses.


----------



## Salzig (Jul 20, 2016)

I'm a feminist. I'm pro-choice and big on personal freedom. Fuck who you want, marry who you want, do what you want. Just don't hurt anybody and pay your fucking taxes.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Jul 20, 2016)

I think that many "traditional" gender roles are bad because they were badly made and are not adapted to the modern world. We need new gender roles instead so everyone can reach their true potential


----------



## Salzig (Jul 20, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I think that many "traditional" gender roles are bad because they were badly made and are not adapted to the modern world. We need new gender roles instead so everyone can reach their true potential


I wanted to be really contrary and be like WHAT IF WE HAD NO GENDERS but really we'll always divide the human species based on sperm-producers and egg-producers but what if man...


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Jul 20, 2016)

Salzig said:


> I wanted to be really contrary and be like WHAT IF WE HAD NO GENDERS but really we'll always divide the human species based on sperm-producers and egg-producers but what if man...


In Hermaphroditic species there is often still a clear division between members that specialize in eggs and ones that specialize in sperm. It is very clearly beneficial


----------



## Pac (Jul 20, 2016)

I don't label myself anything. All I know is that I love my fellow man. Wherever they might be, wherever they are from. And I am grateful for being alive, healthy, and being able to coexist with all members of society. 

Fuck the stupid "male lesbian" , "non binary "  or whatever other bullshit; fuck the abusers, fuck the racists, and fuck the extremists. 

But, that's just me.


----------



## Rin (Jul 20, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I think that many "traditional" gender roles are bad because they were badly made and are not adapted to the modern world. We need new gender roles instead so everyone can reach their true potential


Meh, I honestly think people's individual personalities have a lot more influence on what kind of roles they're suitable for than their gender, especially nowadays that physical requirements are less important for some professions.  While gender plays a part in that, I think focusing too much on it is basically looking at a detail over the whole picture.  Just looking at people as individuals would probably be more effective in helping everyone reach their true potential.

Honestly, I think a lot of the Men's Rights issues are based around lingering cultural misogyny.  Like, men are less likely to be awarded custody in divorce cases because people still think of women as being motherly providers, even when that's not always the case.  Or female-on-male abuse cases are ignored because men are supposed to be strong and women are supposed to be weak victims.  The problem is that a lot of modern feminism is more interested in reinforcing the kind of misogyny that makes them look better than they are promoting true equality - that both men and women are people, and sometimes fucking awful people.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Jul 20, 2016)

Rin said:


> ike, men are less likely to be awarded custody in divorce cases because people still think of women as being motherly providers, even when that's not always the case.


I wouldn't consider that to be lingering misogyny especially considering that it is a produce of feminism with the previous state of affairs being that men were favoured because mothers weren't seen as important to children's development.

Gender roles are about what is good for the individual not good for society so it would have women performing safe jobs and men risky jobs among other things. A lot of division would be based on personality though but I think that we still need to reintroduce an institution of parenthood preferably a more egalitarian one than the old western ideas in which both motherhood and fatherhood are valued


----------



## Stardust (Jul 20, 2016)

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.  If you're not an asshole, sure, lets make life as balanced as possible for everyone.  Talk respectfully and speak rationally instead of screaming and throwing a temper tantrum, and we're cool.

Am I a feminist? I suppose by default, yeah, that sort of comes with having the vagina.  I like to believe I'm not going to be singled out or kept out or down, simply because of my possessing a baby-making tunnel.  But I don't call myself one.  Instead I look out for my peeps, because if you show you're about being friendly and fair it will do more than foaming out, "_WOMEN NEED OUR HELP, RAWR, AND IF YOU WON'T GIVE THEM SUPERIORITY YOU ARE SEXIST!_"

I find jiggling titties to be more persuasive (and more fun) than the former, but hey, that's just the two cents of some random chick on Kiwi Farms.  If only I wasn't the weaker sex, it'd be at least four cents!


----------



## DigitalLazerCat (Jul 23, 2016)

I generally consider myself a feminist, (and generally pro-social justice) but I'm pretty damn critical of the movement as it is. For instance, there's a difference between using your energy (angry or not) to try to have real discussions about our social ills vs. just getting angry on social media and being vitriolic and hyperbolic when trying to get your point across. Honestly, I'd have way more respect for a person who calmly debates with me that Christians are a vulnerable minority in need of protection (lol) than some idiot who supposedly agrees with my opinions, but can't tell me why they do.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Jul 23, 2016)

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that @PeteyCoffee was even more of an autistic neckbeard than I remembered.


----------



## MW 002 (Jul 24, 2016)

I do identify as a feminist politically, but as an egalitarian socially. 

Politically because there are still laws out there which completely fuck over women (particularly when it involves domestic violence; for years my mom was forced by court order to allow my mentally unstable abusive father to see me until she managed to prove that he was abusive to me) 
Though I will say I do understand where the Fathers Rights Movement is coming from because I do know a lot of guys who were fucked over by child custody courts as well. Hence fourth, egalitarian socially because when the laws stop fucking over women then in turn it -should- stop fucking over men as well, in theory. 

However, there are many feminists out there who don't give a shit about how law changes could hurt men- albeit it's more prominent in third and fourth wave feminists. 

I also will say that I can't stand the feminists who push for Cultural Marxism mainly because CM goes against a lot of the core concepts of gender equality in the first place- historically speaking, in communist countries, women were killed far more often than men were within hospitals, work camps and such for a multitude of reasons (men were killed more often in war- but the healthcare system instilled in communist countries would often kill women from childbirth complications. Women were also more likely to be sent to labor camps because of how quick a lot of them were labelled mentally ill for not wanting to live in a communist system). The lack of self awareness is migraine inducing


----------



## WW 635 (Jul 25, 2016)

I almost formed an opinion to write here, but then I remembered I had to check on dinner.


----------



## Ntwadumela (Jul 26, 2016)

I don't mind true feminism, the feminism that promotes equal rights for both women and men, and to be frank it angers me when I see women suffering or being hurt by someone. Though, I also believe that men and women have biological differences which would make them better suited to certain tasks occasionally.

What I do mind is the disgusting hatred that feminazis and certain Trans people have for men and all things masculine, I believe that's classified as misandry.

I never had problems with my biological sex or gender ever in my life, and I take pride in my masculinity. That being said, I'm somewhat traditional in my views towards male gender roles in particular, but that's because I believe they suit me best. As for women? I have an open mind when it comes to ethnicity and personality, so I find women of different races attractive. I also have no problem with tomboyish women and I actually find myself attracted to them as well because I can relate in interests and personality traits. 

I'm not necessarily a feminist but I do believe that women deserve better in certain societies and aspects. I can't stand those men who happen to be complete doormats and literal cucks in relationships,  and at the same time women who act overly dependent and can't do anything at all for themselves.


----------



## TH 360 (Jul 26, 2016)

I can't really say whether I'm a feminist or a MRA. Frankly, I dislike what feminism has become over the years. What used to be a movement dedicated to women gaining equal rights to men, nowadays has quite a few people promoting misandry towards men in some form. Which sucks, because I do believe that women deserve to have equal rights similar to men (especially in certain societies). However, in terms of MRA, I agree with them on some things. Like in regards to their views on divorce. But some of them seem to do the same thing as the feminazis I despise (promote hatred or fear against the opposite sex). Both movements have a fair amount of baggage that I just can't seem to get behind. So egalitarianism is probably the only thing I can identify with.


----------



## Oddjob OTP (Jul 26, 2016)

Whether I am a feminist or not depends on your definitions. Do I think women and men should have equality of opportunity? Yes. Do I think any one group should have legally or socially enforced equality of outcome with any other group? No. 

I don't have any respect for 3rd generation feminists because they try to enforce equality of outcome in western society while ignoring equality of opportunity except when it's to the detriment of western middle-class women. And frankly, their rhetoric is almost always complete shit.


----------



## That Chris Guy (Jul 26, 2016)

_Actual feminism _is something I can wholeheartedly agree with, where women deserve equal rights as men provided they receive the same treatment as men and aren't protected as sacred creatures that are beyond criticism. You know, where they promote equality between all races as well.

Modern feminism - at least in the West - seems like the grotesque doppelganger of such ideals, whereby it's become increasingly more radical: all the participants care about are themselves and ultimately want a gender reversal of older societal norms, instead of actual equality. They want to have their cake and eat it too - with no regard to women who are actually suffering from discrimination in third-world countries unless it can be used to benefit their own platform - and wonder why so many people dislike their malignant ideology.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Jul 26, 2016)

LabrysXII said:


> I can't really say whether I'm a feminist or a MRA. Frankly, I dislike what feminism has become over the years. What used to be a movement dedicated to women gaining equal rights to men, nowadays has quite a few people promoting misandry towards men in some form. Which sucks, because I do believe that women deserve to have equal rights similar to men (especially in certain societies). However, in terms of MRA, I agree with them on some things. Like in regards to their views on divorce. But some of them seem to do the same thing as the feminazis I despise (promote hatred or fear against the opposite sex). Both movements have a fair amount of baggage that I just can't seem to get behind. So egalitarianism is probably the only thing I can identify with.


I don't like MRAs because they promote a victimhood mentality that's unhealthy and frankly unmanly. Sure men face certain challenges that women don't but complaining about being oppressed doesn't help anything and just makes you look like a whiny cuck. Facing challenges is how you grow as a person and overcoming challenges is what real men do.


----------



## MW 002 (Jul 27, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> I don't like MRAs because they promote a victimhood mentality that's unhealthy and frankly unmanly. Sure men face certain challenges that women don't but complaining about being oppressed doesn't help anything and just makes you look like a whiny cuck. Facing challenges is how you grow as a person and overcoming challenges is what real men do.


Christina Hoff Sommers pretty much put it best when she said that men and women face their own unique challenges


----------



## Ninja_Warrior (Jul 27, 2016)

I support feminism where feminism is needed. In Saudi/Qatar, places like that where women literally have no rights.


----------



## PPowell4 (Jul 29, 2016)

I never used to think about sexism much until I started reading online comments, where I could be reading a completely unrelated article, and there would always be at least one man whinging on about his hatred of women or feminists.
What do all these newspaper articles mean when they talk about feminists in a nasty way? I thought they were the people who fought against abuse of women, such as women being able to vote, or not be slaves so they're paid the same as a man. Isn't that just normal? Why does normal need a label? Most of these articles are about something Americans have said. I think Americans tend to be more annoying with getting their point out, so maybe they should just be called annoying Americans instead of feminists?
If I ever replied to awful comments about women in what I thought was an equal way, such as how one world leader said women can't be leaders because they have periods, I said that testosterone causes men to be aggressive, and when men are in their peak testosterone of late teens and early 20s, they cause more dangerous accidents than others, I was called a feminist. That means many think it's normal for women to be insulted, but if a woman does the same to a man, then they're part of an unusual organisation.
I saw there were videos on youtube as tributes to serial killers, and the comments were saying things such as how the women deserved it because they were this or that, as if they think they can decide on if she lives or not.
I never realised so many men had the abusive partner or serial killer mentality.

I noticed there are a lot of men from countries where women are abused for going out alone such as some backward Indian villages, who use any internet forum to whinge on against feminism, but also quite a few men from the USA too. I don't think they're against feminism because they want a traditional role where men look after women, because women shouldn't have rights to vote or equal pay etc. I think they're angry because they want more rights to be abusive towards women.


----------



## Save Goober (Jul 30, 2016)

PPowell4 said:


> I never used to think about sexism much until I started reading online comments, where I could be reading a completely unrelated article, and there would always be at least one man whinging on about his hatred of women or feminists.
> What do all these newspaper articles mean when they talk about feminists in a nasty way? I thought they were the people who fought against abuse of women, such as women being able to vote, or not be slaves so they're paid the same as a man. Isn't that just normal? Why does normal need a label? Most of these articles are about something Americans have said. I think Americans tend to be more annoying with getting their point out, so maybe they should just be called annoying Americans instead of feminists?
> If I ever replied to awful comments about women in what I thought was an equal way, such as how one world leader said women can't be leaders because they have periods, I said that testosterone causes men to be aggressive, and when men are in their peak testosterone of late teens and early 20s, they cause more dangerous accidents than others, I was called a feminist. That means many think it's normal for women to be insulted, but if a woman does the same to a man, then they're part of an unusual organisation.
> I saw there were videos on youtube as tributes to serial killers, and the comments were saying things such as how the women deserved it because they were this or that, as if they think they can decide on if she lives or not.
> ...


Yeah these whiny faggots are everywhere. I saw one go off on an anti-woman rant on an article about motherfucking beanie babies. How do you even get to that point, where you're on a blog about beanie babies and it triggers you that hard?
I know a lot of women who have been seriously abused by different men, they don't spew so much vitriol toward men as these guys do toward women. With men it's usually over some pathetic nonsense like their female friends dating someone else and not them, or not getting laid enough, or getting divorced for being a shitty husband but they dindu nuffin wrong. Notice, none of these men ever take responsibility for their failed relationships. If they do, it's usually twisted around to fault women somehow e.g. "I tried to be a caring husband, but women prefer bad boys"
Lots of men are both extremely entitled and mentally unbalanced. This is how you get shit like in the middle east with men literally burning women or throwing acid at them for rejecting them, except that's not acceptable in first world countries so we get a bunch of impotent keyboard warriors shitting up the internet instead. It's best to just ignore them.


----------



## feedtheoctopus (Aug 1, 2016)

Actual feminism? Yes, I'm all for that. Tumblr feminism? I don't think even tumblr feminists know what the fuck that shit is, but people can think what they want. 

Women have problems and disadvantages in society that men don't have (in some cases not on the same scale, at any rate). Having a robust conversation about what those problems and disadvantages are is a good thing, and I don't understand why people get so pissy at the idea that women are human beings. I feel like most of the people who hate on feminism don't actually know what it is. 

Also quoting Judith Butler to hipster chicks is a good way to get laid


----------



## Wallace (Aug 1, 2016)

feedtheoctopus said:


> Actual feminism? Yes, I'm all for that. Tumblr feminism? I don't think even tumblr feminists know what the fuck that shit is, but people can think what they want.



 Thing is, Tumblr/Twitter feminism has been so thoroughly highjacked by narcissists that it barely resembles feminism anymore. 

There’s a strange irony in the current state of online social justice politics. The most vocal and popular in the group often also possess vicious personalities, alternating between idolized martyrdom and provocative vituperation. Ironically, people like this actually harm the cause of social equality with their abusive rhetoric by alienating others. The reasoning behind such people rising to prominence in these groups is not accidental, nor a coincidence. The deck is stacked in a way that favors narcissistic abusers to thrive.

People with self-hatred tend to inadvertently create a narcissistic world around themselves. They use their self-flagellation as a way to gain approval of others. This produces narcissism as compensation for their suffering, which focuses their attention on themselves, while the world goes on with the same level of injustice. It erodes their ability to empathize with others, because they must continue to feed their narcissism, and blinds them to reality. In this way, SJWs hoist themselves with their own petard. They focus intently on their own suffering while ignoring the suffering of others; the exact sin that they love to accuse others of doing. 

In a group dynamic, each of them becomes simultaneously a codependent enabler and an instigator. The delusional self-hatred is reinforced by the group consensus, and over time, it even becomes a competition. Each attempts to one-up the others with greater tales of narcissistic social justice, and each focuses only on speech and actions that offer a greater social reward within the group, specifically outrage or jokes. This is easily quantifiable in the form of upvotes, reblogs, and retweets. The group therefore becomes a ready source of narcissistic supply, as well as peer pressure to remain in this state. The winners of this competition are the ones who are the most willing to feed this supply; those who are the most willing exaggerate their own importance and even inflict harm on others, all with the approval of their own psyche. The empathy that would allow them to succeed at their professed cause instead becomes a liability within the group.

To the narcissist, social media is the ultimate playground. While no causal link between social media and narcissistic personality has been proven, there is evidence for correlation between the two, especially on Twitter among millennials. Social media offers the ability to create many superficial friendships while presenting a carefully curated and overly grandiose persona, an ideal situation for a narcissist. Online interactions offer freedom from both physical and social inhibitions, allowing delusions of grandeur, narcissism, viciousness, impulsivity, and infantile behavior to rise to the surface. In turn, as Elias Aboujaoude suggests in his book Virtual You, "the traits we take on online can become incorporated in our offline personalities." Since the most extreme behaviors attract the highest social reward online, there is incentive to continue them, and incorporate these attitudes into the offline self. This creates not only hubris, but an inability to communicate effectively outside of the online social circle, as the narcissist has become too addicted to their online supply.

The natural consequence of identity politics is to mortgage long-term political gains for short-term boosts of self-esteem. On social media, this has never been easier, nor more destructive, as the inevitable winners of such games are the ones who are most willing to use the group for their own selfish ends. As Freddie deBoer writes, “In this disregard for actual political success, they reveal their own privilege, as it’s only the privileged who could ever have so little regard for actual, material progress. As long as they are allowed to co-opt the movement for social justice for their own personal aggrandizement, the world will not improve, not for women, people of color, gay and transgender people, or the poor.”


----------



## feedtheoctopus (Aug 2, 2016)

Wallace said:


> Thing is, Tumblr/Twitter feminism has been so thoroughly highjacked by narcissists that it barely resembles feminism anymore.
> 
> There’s a strange irony in the current state of online social justice politics. The most vocal and popular in the group often also possess vicious personalities, alternating between idolized martyrdom and provocative vituperation. Ironically, people like this actually harm the cause of social equality with their abusive rhetoric by alienating others. The reasoning behind such people rising to prominence in these groups is not accidental, nor a coincidence. The deck is stacked in a way that favors narcissistic abusers to thrive.
> 
> ...



If you've ever read _No Logo_ by Naomi Klein she has a great bit in it where she talks about the first wave of what's often termed "political correctness" in the 80's and early 90's. Their whole political analysis was based on the assumption that our problems and divisions come down to cultural constructs, and that if we just point out flaws in mainstream culture loudly and long enough sooner or later that culture will change and we'll have a more just society. Thing is it was all appearance, all representation. In the process of giving into pure identity politics with no broader analysis they ended up just creating a marketing opportunity.

This is about when various corporations started trying to present themselves as socially liberal and forward thinking. They found a way to brand identity, to associate themselves with inclusivity and tolerance.  Meanwhile they were selling products made by exploited women of color in overseas sweatshops. More than that whatever radical potential exists in identity politics was eradicated by the fact that it had now become an aimless fashion statement to a lot of people. She brings up Courtney Love and accusations that she "sold out" later in her career. Courtney Love never actually "sold out" because she was never "pure" to begin with, she was just a punk chick who did heroin, she didn't have any broader beliefs or anything like that. And if she did they weren't significant enough to her life to stick with. 

I can't really say I "hate" identity politics, but there's no point in complaining about racism or sexism without understanding how it springs from a broader power structure in society, which is something these idiots never do. And if they do actually question how our society works on a political/economic level they drag it down to the level of platitudes or fall back on shallow reformism. 

At the end of the day they're all just jerking themselves off. 

I might add the far-right isn't immune to this kind of narcissistic identitarian crap either. 

Just watch this


----------



## Wallace (Aug 2, 2016)

feedtheoctopus said:


> If you've ever read _No Logo_ by Naomi Klein she has a great bit in it where she talks about the first wave of what's often termed "political correctness" in the 80's and early 90's. Their whole political analysis was based on the assumption that our problems and divisions come down to cultural constructs, and that if we just point out flaws in mainstream culture loudly and long enough sooner or later that culture will change and we'll have a more just society. Thing is it was all appearance, all representation. In the process of giving into pure identity politics with no broader analysis they ended up just creating a marketing opportunity.
> 
> This is about when various corporations started trying to present themselves as socially liberal and forward thinking. They found a way to brand identity, to associate themselves with inclusivity and tolerance.  Meanwhile they were selling products made by exploited women of color in overseas sweatshops. More than that whatever radical potential exists in identity politics was eradicated by the fact that it had now become an aimless fashion statement to a lot of people. She brings up Courtney Love and accusations that she "sold out" later in her career. Courtney Love never actually "sold out" because she was never "pure" to begin with, she was just a punk chick who did heroin, she didn't have any broader beliefs or anything like that. And if she did they weren't significant enough to her life to stick with.



Indeed, and I think the structural problems in society will go on unabated because of this. Big companies like Sony will get invested in SocJus rhetoric because it’s hip and trendy, but as soon as they realize it doesn’t make them money, they’ll drop it like a hot potato. Paul Feig’s career trajectory will be very telling. Hollywood has very little tolerance for people who lose money.

Likewise, big companies will only give into demands just enough to deflect criticism. They will promote only a token few women and minorities to hold up and say that the system works. That’s the problem with the 1%, there’s only enough room for 1% of the population in it.


----------



## komugi (Aug 11, 2016)

I'm a misandrist


----------



## FuckBitchesGetRiches (Aug 14, 2016)

I don't mind the concept of the movement but good lord some of the people in it are so arrogant (or idiotic) about it, I wonder if they have some parental issues they need to work out. Aside from that, one thing I'm sort of concerned about is doctors who don't take women being in pain seriously. I'm not sure what can be done about it, as not everyone is going to listen despite best efforts.



Spoiler



:powerlevel: Some people are so flabbergasted by people saying they're not feminist, you could say that you were stalked or sexually harassed and the topic somehow was involved in the incident, and they'll just latch onto the "I don't get why you're not a feminist" part and shit like that doesn't really help my feelings about the people who call themselves feminists.


----------



## Lurkette (Sep 9, 2016)

I do not identify myself as a feminist, and would be a little upset if someone called me one just because of the shit tumblrettes have done to the name, but I support actual feminists with actual knowledge about how the actual world works and not only_ deign_ to allow others to have a different opinion, but ENCOURAGE that. Like Christine Hoff, for example.


----------



## Hom Tanks (Sep 29, 2016)

lol Modern feminism is stupid, it's proven that women actually depend on men for emotional and logical support, without them they'll act on impulse all the time and think that empowerment means getting people in trouble in the name of your inferiority. Sorry, it's sad but true.


----------



## TheImportantFart (Sep 30, 2016)

Hom Tanks said:


> lol Modern feminism is stupid, it's proven that women actually depend on men for emotional and logical support, without them they'll act on impulse all the time and think that empowerment means getting people in trouble in the name of your inferiority. Sorry, it's sad but true.


The Loveshy Therapy Center is the other way. It's closed too.


----------



## ShittyRecolor (Oct 2, 2016)

Anyone of you familiar with this channel?






While I've only skimmed through a handful of his videos for a couplr minutes, it seems like this guy is a feminist YouTuber who actually does his research, although he did refer to Everyday Feminism as a great site, which is a bit iffy. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## DuckSucker (Oct 6, 2016)

melty said:


> Yeah these whiny faggots are everywhere. I saw one go off on an anti-woman rant on an article about motherfucking beanie babies. How do you even get to that point, where you're on a blog about beanie babies and it triggers you that hard?
> I know a lot of women who have been seriously abused by different men, they don't spew so much vitriol toward men as these guys do toward women. With men it's usually over some pathetic nonsense like their female friends dating someone else and not them, or not getting laid enough, or getting divorced for being a shitty husband but they dindu nuffin wrong. Notice, none of these men ever take responsibility for their failed relationships. If they do, it's usually twisted around to fault women somehow e.g. "I tried to be a caring husband, but women prefer bad boys"
> Lots of men are both extremely entitled and mentally unbalanced. This is how you get shit like in the middle east with men literally burning women or throwing acid at them for rejecting them, except that's not acceptable in first world countries so we get a bunch of impotent keyboard warriors shitting up the internet instead. It's best to just ignore them.



This shit happens because men are the disposable gender. I genuinely hope there can be a time where there is a cap on how many men are born. Not because they would be less disposable, but just because there would be fewer of them. Women are better and stronger, genetically and otherwise.  The only men that should be allowed to live should either serve, or be what women want, tall, well hung, good looking and masculine.


----------



## Meowthkip (Oct 6, 2016)

DuckSucker said:


> This shit happens because men are the disposable gender. I genuinely hope there can be a time where there is a cap on how many men are born. Not because they would be less disposable, but just because there would be fewer of them. Women are better and stronger, genetically and otherwise.  The only men that should be allowed to live should either serve, or be what women want, tall, well hung, good looking and masculine.



Please, expound upon these views and opinions of yours.

This is a good idea for you to do, certainly.


----------



## JU 199 (Oct 6, 2016)

DuckSucker said:


> The only men that should be allowed to live should either serve, or be what women want, tall, well hung, good looking and masculine.



Could you elaborate on this please?


----------



## Brandobaris (Oct 6, 2016)

"Not a Honeypot"


----------



## JU 199 (Oct 6, 2016)

Brandobaris said:


> "Not a Honeypot"
> 
> View attachment 141903



I thought you were leaving


----------



## Cheap Sandals (Oct 8, 2016)

I'm a feminist in the sense that I disagree with sexism and I value women as equal to men.

edit: to expand a little, I feel a total disconnect from popular feminism. I think Slut-Walks are retarded. I think North American feminism totally lacks class consciousness and I think that's a shame.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Oct 8, 2016)

It's just a label, and if you despise the vast majority of people using that label, you probably shouldn't be using it!!!


----------



## pozilei (Oct 9, 2016)

I used to consider myself a feminist because 1) I support women's rights in places where they have few or no rights and 2) out of respect for the feminists who made life better for me and millions of other women. The right to vote, being able to get an education, the possibility to get a good job, being able to choose when to have children (birth control in general, not just abortion), what is considered rape (e.g. spousal rape) etc. Granted not all of that happened purely because of feminism but it played a part in it.

Having said that, the current type of feminism (3rd wave and 4th wave) is just fucking nuts. They're making problems out of nothing, ignore actual problems because muh culture/the progressive stack (for instance the complete silence over the Cologne taharrush shit), they're going back and forth between being #StrongIndependentWomyn and being delicate little flowers that have to be protected from rude tweets and mansplaining. I just don't get it anymore...


----------



## AlanRickmanIsDead (Oct 9, 2016)

pozilei said:


> I used to consider myself a feminist because 1) I support women's rights in places where they have few or no rights and 2) out of respect for the feminists who made life better for me and millions of other women. The right to vote, being able to get an education, the possibility to get a good job, being able to choose when to have children (birth control in general, not just abortion), what is considered rape (e.g. spousal rape) etc. Granted not all of that happened purely because of feminism but it played a part in it.
> 
> Having said that, the current type of feminism (3rd wave and 4th wave) is just fucking nuts. They're making problems out of nothing, ignore actual problems because muh culture/the progressive stack (for instance the complete silence over the Cologne taharrush shit), they're going back and forth between being #StrongIndependentWomyn and being delicate little flowers that have to be protected from rude tweets and mansplaining. I just don't get it anymore...



Here's the explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocqueville_effect


----------



## Joan Nyan (Oct 13, 2016)

shibbolethal said:


> some people might consider me something of an SJW considering how involved i am with certain societal issues


Elaborate


----------



## ICametoLurk (Oct 13, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Elaborate


and post ur tumblr


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 13, 2016)

shibbolethal said:


> i'm mainly just an overly sensitive bleeding heart fag, really. that's all there is to it. i don't go around saying that everybody who uses the word "stupid" is ableist or something, but i'm aware when somebody purposefully or accidentally says or does something that could be potentially harmful to somebody in real life.



The problem with being like this is the world is going to stomp your heart into bloody ribbons and then you'll just hate absolutely everyone.

I'm not saying have no compassion, but realize that unlike a bunch of hippy dippy slogans, the human nervous system is actually kind of limited in emotion.  It burns the fuck out when overloaded.  Save that compassion for people who actually deserve it.


----------



## Mars Attacks! (Oct 14, 2016)

There's still a need for feminism IMO, even in Western countries.  You may not have to worry about acid getting thrown in your face but there's a lot of differences in the way men and women are treated that are unequal.  :powerlevel:I'm trans and have experienced being seen as/treated as both a man and a woman. They both suck in their own ways but honestly the female experience is a lot shittier.  Women shouldn't have to be worried about sexual harassment to the degree that we see in our society or be assumed less intelligent because of their lady parts.  I'd say I'm more second-wave, the way that Tumblr/gender politics has taken over the movement is pushing out a lot of people (while bringing in others that have no business being there but want to be speshull).  I mean, I've been called a TERF for having radical opinions such as "if you aren't attracted to dick you aren't transphobic for not wanting to fuck a pre-op trans woman."


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 14, 2016)

I am big on actual legal protections for women, like Title IX and anti-sex discrimination laws, where if you're paid less just for not having a dick (or for that matter paid less because you do have a dick), you can file a lawsuit against who did that to you and win.

I am very not big on just pure whining and tantrum throwing and pretending women are pretty princesses who can do no wrong.

I consider women (and for that matter gay and trans people) to be morally and legally equal to men in every important respect.

It actually pisses me off the word "feminist" has been so totally ruined and shat upon by crazy, evil harpies who hate all of humanity, including most actual women.

I would gladly call myself a "feminist" if not for the fact that it now amounts to saying you hate pretty much everyone and, if you're a male, you either chopped off your dick, you want to chop off your dick, or you're a cuck who wants to see your gf fucked by a dozen other dudes.


----------



## DumbDosh (Oct 15, 2016)

I find that saying I'm a woman's rights advocate is much easier and better in this day and age. It makes it easy to explain "Yeah, I'm for equality and mainly focusing on improving the conditions for women in places like the middle east where it's a shithole for them."

Feminism has so much negative connotation to it, and the crusading for shit in the united states is so pointless and retarded when there are way bigger issues in the U.S. than air conditioning sexism bullshit.

Plus if a feminist gets mad that I call myself a woman's rights advocate and an egalitarian it's just blatantly pointing out how stupid the feminist movement has become.


----------



## Ponderous Pillock (Oct 15, 2016)

I call myself a "traditional feminist" when pushed.

 In a post-industrial society there is really nothing (bar talent) stopping men and women doing the same job. When a society is still more industrialized, then men will be better at some jobs than women, and vice-versa. 

This isn't "against women" to say so due to regular biological differences. I wouldn't bar a woman from any post, but if the job involves heavy lifting then said woman would have to work a lot harder to be in shape for the job.

The problem with how things stack now with this "new wave" of feminism is that its simply part of the gunk of fascism pretending to be part of the right on set.


----------



## Diana Moon Glampers (Oct 15, 2016)

I'm a feminist.

I don't want "equality."  No, stop, listen.  The whole PROBLEM with third wave feminism is this idea that you can make everything better between the sexes by equalizing stupid shit that is currently done by just one sex.  Women should be able to spread their legs out in public!  Women should be able to be villains and horrible moms!  Men should be able to be vain and spend all their time thinking about clothes and hair!  Little boys should be able to obsess over Disney princesses and buy a roomful of licensed merch!  Women should be able to walk around with exposed nipples!  Men should be able to make youtube videos where they sob into the camera while their makeup runs down their face!

Both sexes should feel equally free to express their innermost qualities through selective purchases of clothing and consumer goods!

Look, "equality" can be manipulated by the powerful just like anything else.  What's being sold right now to the contemporary pseudo-feminist crowd is a notion of equality that just happens to equalize things in a way that always revolves around spending more money and feeling more personal insecurity (which leads to spending more money).

When I say that I'm a feminist but not looking for equality, this is what I mean.  At its core, feminism is a method of analysis that allows for understanding the power relationships between men and women and being able to consider solutions for the liberation of human beings from the gender class hierarchy -- solutions that allow for living in ways that take our reproductive differences into account, but attempt to ensure freedom and support for women, who are often limited unnecessarily because our bodies must invest more heavily in the act of reproduction.


----------



## Pedo Bait (Oct 15, 2016)

I don't really like labels since they divide people into camps and reinforce points of view as part of one's identity when they should be malleable to facts and new information. But I was raised by 2nd wave feminists so a lot of my perspective comes from that, and most of my views that have any gendered tint to them are feminist in one way or another.

The thing is, we won the 2nd wave war in most of the western world, decades ago. Women have had equal legal rights to men in my country, anti-discrimination laws, reproductive rights, and access to support systems for as long as I've been alive. But things still aren't really all that equal. Part of that is for reproductive reasons but mostly it's because traditional legal and cultural systems left an imprint on our culture in sometimes very subtle and devious ways. So it shouldn't be hard to accept the premise that there are hard-to-see biases which differentiate people by gender more than necessary. The question is then which ones are which, and how do you stop/fight/prevent them? And that's where people start to stratify into different camps like calling out misogynistic comments or turning every microaggression into a site ban.

Personally I like to think that people generally want things to improve, and are willing to believe empirically verifiable information, but the discourse is so inundated with made-up facts and poorly controlled studies that quite often individuals don't believe something that's happening right under their noses because nobody has bothered to actually research it. So I try to provide accurate studies and information where I can, and let people draw their own conclusions. Sometimes I can't and that sucks but you don't have to win every battle.

One thing that bothers me is the creation of MRA etc. as if it is in opposition or at least a counterpart/complement to feminism when feminism was supposed to be inclusive and egalitarian in the first place. Most of the MRA complaints are the flip side of feminist arguments - men would get custody more often if women weren't the de facto nurturers, men would suffer less from alimony if women earned more money, rape of men would be taken more seriously if men weren't more often in a position of power, etc. I'm way oversimplifying but I'm just trying to make the point that *it should still be part of the same movement. They're not different concerns.* The fact that they have splintered off tells me something has gone horribly wrong.

So I guess I am technically also an MRA lol? I definitely wouldn't identify as one though. The associations of that label are worse than feminism.


----------



## DuckSucker (Oct 19, 2016)

Mars Attacks! said:


> They both suck in their own ways but honestly the female experience is a lot shittier.  Women shouldn't have to be worried about sexual harassment to the degree that we see in our society or be assumed less intelligent because of their lady parts.



Realtalk what was your birth gender? This is probably a shitty thing to ask but I am curious. I believe in that "men are the disposable gender" BS.


Shaftie said:


> Feminism has so much negative connotation to it, and the crusading for shit in the united states is so pointless and exceptional when there are way bigger issues in the U.S. than air conditioning sexism bullshit.



I do think that this is an issue and I wish that fewer men were born.  Its a matter of feminism being a lot of things to different people.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Oct 20, 2016)

Cucumber said:


> I consider a lot of feminism to have too many similarities to my Catholic upbringing. My thought is "if I took issue with this coming from a nun, why wouldn't I take issue with this coming from anyone else?" Particularly the idea that men were all predators, with no ability to control those sinful urges, and the "you must be in this group to be moral." I didn't find those teachings to sit well with me at all.


I come from a catholic upbringing as well. The logic I use when confronted with the idea that I should apologize for a position I had no choice in is this: I didn't buy into original sin when the church tried to sell me on it, and I don't buy into it when professional victims do either. 



pozilei said:


> they're going back and forth between being #StrongIndependentWomyn and being delicate little flowers that have to be protected from rude tweets and mansplaining.


This is what kills it for me more than anything else. A lot of these wafflers will leap down your throat (and send a lynch mob after you if you have any public presence) if you say anything they interpret as being divisive, but they also seem to want institutionalized segregation where all women should just not fight or struggle for anything, because "the game is always rigged, lets just make society jump the high hurdles for you", and it has no endgame that I can tell. If a little girl growing up today is constantly bombarded with the message that society owes her exception after exception because she can't ever win a fight on her own, how is anyone (including herself!) ever supposed to see her as "equal"?


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 25, 2016)

demeter said:


> If any of  these fuckholes had to look into the face of an abused woman (not saying men aren't abused because they are!), they'd sober up really quick.



Sadly, not really.  Scumbag troons like Richard "Buffalo Bill" Jones not only didn't sober up on being excluded from a women's shelter (not even for being a troon but for not being in any danger at all), the son of a bitch actually tried to sue the shelter.


----------



## Pickle Inspector (Oct 26, 2016)

Pedo Bait said:


> I don't really like labels since they divide people into camps and reinforce points of view as part of one's identity when they should be malleable to facts and new information. But I was raised by 2nd wave feminists so a lot of my perspective comes from that, and most of my views that have any gendered tint to them are feminist in one way or another.
> 
> The thing is, we won the 2nd wave war in most of the western world, decades ago. Women have had equal legal rights to men in my country, anti-discrimination laws, reproductive rights, and access to support systems for as long as I've been alive. But things still aren't really all that equal. Part of that is for reproductive reasons but mostly it's because traditional legal and cultural systems left an imprint on our culture in sometimes very subtle and devious ways. So it shouldn't be hard to accept the premise that there are hard-to-see biases which differentiate people by gender more than necessary. The question is then which ones are which, and how do you stop/fight/prevent them? And that's where people start to stratify into different camps like calling out misogynistic comments or turning every microaggression into a site ban.
> 
> ...


Men's rights groups and feminism are just two sides of the same coin in my opinion, they both have people with reasonable points (Equality issues) and also both (especially on the internet) have a lot of crazies, ideally they'd just be about egalitarianism and rename it that but from what I can see the main problem is many from both side treat it as a zero sum game where if one side gains it means the other loses out.

A lot of it is probally due to limited government/charity funding where for one example using domestic violence shelters if they make one for men it uses money that could have been used for a woman's domestic violence shelter (After a search here's an article talking about it  - http://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-men ) and it's the same for legal issues, rape claims are in the news a lot and that's something where if you make any significant changes it negatively affects the other side.


----------



## Marvin (Oct 26, 2016)

Pickle Inspector said:


> After a search here's an article talking about it - http://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-men


The article is kind of goofy. Kinda followed along with the premise for a bit, then got bored when the author busted out the patriarchy and toxic masculinity and blah blah blah.

Comments are pretty solid though.


----------



## Pickle Inspector (Oct 26, 2016)

Marvin said:


> The article is kind of goofy. Kinda followed along with the premise for a bit, then got bored when the author busted out the patriarchy and toxic masculinity and blah blah blah.
> 
> Comments are pretty solid though.


Yeah the site is kind of on the "Check your privilege" side of things, I just linked it to give an example why there's a divide between feminists and mens right activists, in an ideal world they'd be enough funding to support all genuine victims.


----------



## Marvin (Oct 26, 2016)

Pickle Inspector said:


> Yeah the site is kind of on the "Check your privilege" side of things, I just linked it to give an example why there's a divide between feminists and mens right activists, in an ideal world they'd be enough funding to support all genuine victims.


Well, I mean, I was slightly impressed by how long (which wasn't terribly long) the article lasted before it got to the "check your privilege" stuff. Heh, it's funny that nowadays that pausing a bit before the "male oppression" arguments come out is praiseworthy.

I need to quit reading the Assigned Male thread. (Well, in that case, cis oppression, but yeah.)

And like I said, the comments were very level headed.


----------



## Diana Moon Glampers (Oct 26, 2016)

Pickle Inspector said:


> Yeah the site is kind of on the "Check your privilege" side of things, I just linked it to give an example why there's a divide between feminists and mens right activists, in an ideal world they'd be enough funding to support all genuine victims.



Yeah so the thing about that is: funding doesn't just HAPPEN.  The reason there are women's shelters isn't that society has always deemed them necessary to fund.  It's because feminists fought like hell to get that funding, donated a shitload of money to private shelters, volunteered their time to build them, and so on.

Same thing with divorce and custody.  Until the mid-20th century, fathers were always the people who got custody, unless they didn't want it.  Women's fight for more custody rights led first to something called the "tender years doctrine" that generally left young kids in their mother's care, and later to child support enforcement laws.  Today, states favor joint custody arrangements, most dads who want custody get it, and even men who are police-documented physical abusers routinely get joint custody or unsupervised visitation.  The reason so few kids are living with their dads? Most dads don't ask for custody.

When's the last time you saw any of the men's rights guys do a damn thing for male victims of domestic violence?  I've seen feminists offer up their houses to women in domestic violence situations. Hell, most women I know have at some point had to put up a woman whose boyfriend was beating the hell out of them, feminist or not.

How many male victims of domestic violence do you suppose the average men's rights activist is willing to provide shelter for?  How many hours do you think they'd volunteer lobbying?  Would they donate toilet paper and deodorant to the men's DV shelter?

This is why I think their whole movement is a joke.  If there was a men's movement that was actually about solving problems for male victims of violence, et cetera, it'd be well-received by the general public.  The reason people roll their eyes at "meninists" is that the activists' priorities seem to actually be "force women to sleep with men like me" and other similar agenda items.

Of course, it's not like today's feminist movement is doing any better.  For all the crying men's rights activists do about feminists, today's feminists aren't bothering to actually do a damn thing to improve conditions for women.  They'd sooner have an hours-long twitter war over a TV show's representation of women than fight for American women to have even enough maternity leave to be able to recover physically from the act of pushing out an infant, and they'd CERTAINLY never be so culturally insensitive as to fight female genital mutilation (and they'll make sure you know that the very term is transphobic).

Instead, from both sides of this gender divide, it's a bunch of unattractive (inside and out) narcissists finding justifications for insisting that people should sleep with them and pay them as much attention as they crave.


----------



## Infidel (Oct 31, 2016)

It's always a little annoying (read: a godawful pain in the ass) when I have to interact with my feminist female peers. 

I still try to stand my ground when I explain that while I believe in equality, I refuse to associate myself with third-wave feminists... But let's say that they try to guilt-trip me into admitting that Feminism is The One True Way Of Life(tm).
It's incredible how pushy they are when it comes to dragging people into their ideology... It's kind of like a cult and it's terrifying. They keep telling me that all the good things I have in life now are thanks to feminism (which I won't entirely deny, but it's not their feminism, my rights to vote, own property and abort if needed- and only under certain circumstances- I owe to first and second wave feminism, not their shrill fear-mongering bullshit) and they really try to pull at my nerves, pressing where it hurts to force me to agree. 

The most recent example I can think of, and I will give you context for this, I am an oveweight young woman (but I apparently get white and 'pretty face' privilege... So that's a thing.) and they will constantly tell me how the Patriarchy will treat me like shit, how I am 'socially handicapped' because of my weight, how men think that I'm disgusting and how I'm oppressed by Womens' Magazines and the fashion industry and whatnot. 

The funny thing is that in my adult life (because anything pre-adulthood doesn't count as children and teens are all little shits by definition) never has a (respectable) man insulted me about my weight. Who has, though? Feminists. 
I mean, sure, they put their insults in the mouth of the Patriarchy,  but it's there. It's textbook fear-mongering and it exasperates me more than anything.  They are the ones who tell me I'm 'socially handicapped' because of my size, not the Patriarchy. 

They don't even have any consideration for the Feminists who fought before them, those who fought the real fights (known as: not whining about manspreading, not screaming about fictional characters' portrayals and not throwing a tantrum about women not adhering to the cult).
Have any of them read about Simone de Beauvoir or Olympe de Gouges? No. But you bet they'll cherrypick out-of-context quotes from their essays and slap pixel pastel shit on it to post it on Tumblr. 

*TL;DR = Equality is great, I believe in that. Feminism as a movement got cancer, which is now terminal, and needs euthanesia as soon as possible. 
Textbook Feminism doesn't exist under the pink banner anymore. *
And tbh it pains me more than anything to see girls get roped into that shit.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Oct 31, 2016)

MademoisellePiggy said:


> It's always a little annoying (read: a godawful pain in the ass) when I have to interact with my feminist female peers.
> 
> I still try to stand my ground when I explain that while I believe in equality, I refuse to associate myself with third-wave feminists... But let's say that they try to guilt-trip me into admitting that Feminism is The One True Way Of Life(tm).
> It's incredible how pushy they are when it comes to dragging people into their ideology... It's kind of like a cult and it's terrifying. They keep telling me that all the good things I have in life now are thanks to feminism (which I won't entirely deny, but it's not their feminism, my rights to vote, own property and abort if needed- and only under certain circumstances- I owe to first and second wave feminism, not their shrill fear-mongering bullshit) and they really try to pull at my nerves, pressing where it hurts to force me to agree.
> ...





Abortions4All said:


> Yeah so the thing about that is: funding doesn't just HAPPEN.  The reason there are women's shelters isn't that society has always deemed them necessary to fund.  It's because feminists fought like hell to get that funding, donated a shitload of money to private shelters, volunteered their time to build them, and so on.
> 
> Same thing with divorce and custody.  Until the mid-20th century, fathers were always the people who got custody, unless they didn't want it.  Women's fight for more custody rights led first to something called the "tender years doctrine" that generally left young kids in their mother's care, and later to child support enforcement laws.  Today, states favor joint custody arrangements, most dads who want custody get it, and even men who are police-documented physical abusers routinely get joint custody or unsupervised visitation.  The reason so few kids are living with their dads? Most dads don't ask for custody.
> 
> ...



I hope these get signal boosted to the entire world.


----------



## Mike "Bubbles" Smith (Nov 1, 2016)

I consider myself a feminist (and even believe in the tenets of social justice) but I never call myself one, nor would I associate myself with social justice groups. People have said it with better words than I have before, but there's so much abuse and outright hatred among those groups, and I say that on a forum dedicated to gang-stalking and picking on dumb people on the internet.

Honestly if I were a woman and given a choice between hanging out with a bunch of feminists and a bunch of MRAs I'd pick the MRAs, because while the MRAs might be smelly and say mean things to me the feminists are going to shove their shit down my through while pretending to fawn over me, and if there's a Male Ally present I'll probably get sexually assaulted Devin Faraci-style.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 1, 2016)

SJWs, even as the term is used by alt-righters, have absolutely nothing to do with actual justice, social or otherwise.  They view all of existence as a grudge match in a nihilistic, zero sum way I used to associate with Randroids and other similar right wingers.  Except worse.  And dumber.  You can actually reason with Randroids to some degree.  SJWs literally reject the whole idea of logic and facts as somehow oppressive.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Nov 1, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> SJWs, even as the term is used by alt-righters, have absolutely nothing to do with actual justice, social or otherwise.  They view all of existence as a grudge match in a nihilistic, zero sum way I used to associate with Randroids and other similar right wingers.  Except worse.  And dumber.  You can actually reason with Randroids to some degree.  SJWs literally reject the whole idea of logic and facts as somehow oppressive.



I once saw a post that read "what people mean when they say that they're unbiased, rational, or logical is that they are actually a white man." Apparently, this was meant as an insult to white men and was hailed as a witty critique of the patriarchy.

I cannot fathom the mental gymnastics involved to this very night.


----------



## Null (Nov 1, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> SJWs, even as the term is used by alt-righters, have absolutely nothing to do with actual justice, social or otherwise.


Never forget that Social Justice was the name of a Fascist newspaper headed by American Nazi sympathizer and the first political radio talking head: Charles Coughlin.

I'm also very fond of this video.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 1, 2016)

Null said:


> Never forget that Social Justice was the name of a Fascist newspaper headed by American Nazi sympathizer and the first political radio talking head: Charles Coughlin.



I had actually forgotten that.  Father Coughlin, ironically enough, practically invented modern talk radio.  Back in the '30s.


----------



## DuskEngine (Nov 1, 2016)

Null said:


> Never forget that Social Justice was the name of a Fascist newspaper headed by American Nazi sympathizer and the first political radio talking head: Charles Coughlin.
> 
> I'm also very fond of this video.



"Social justice" under broadly similar names has been around since Chesterton. It shows up in the canon law of the Catholic Church. When people gathered in Tahrir Square before everything went to shit there, they called for "bread, freedom, social justice," and they sure as shit weren't talking about representation in media or any of that garbage.

It's not an inherently dirty phrase outside of the US (or even just the internet, really).


----------



## Caesare (Nov 1, 2016)

Null said:


> Never forget that Social Justice was the name of a Fascist newspaper headed by American Nazi sympathizer and the first political radio talking head: Charles Coughlin.




Father Couglin was a good man and devout servant of the Roman Catholic church.


----------



## Xerxes IX (Nov 1, 2016)

Gym Leader Elesa said:


> I once saw a post that read "what people mean when they say that they're unbiased, rational, or logical is that they are actually a white man." Apparently, this was meant as an insult to white men and was hailed as a witty critique of the patriarchy.
> 
> I cannot fathom the mental gymnastics involved to this very night.


Considering SJWs are severely biased and do prioritize fee-fees over rationality and logic, I'd say it fits just fine. Of course, why a group would _want_ to be the opposite of unbiased rational and logical is another matter entirely.


----------



## Pedo Bait (Nov 1, 2016)

Gym Leader Elesa said:


> I once saw a post that read "what people mean when they say that they're unbiased, rational, or logical is that they are actually a white man." Apparently, this was meant as an insult to white men and was hailed as a witty critique of the patriarchy.
> 
> I cannot fathom the mental gymnastics involved to this very night.


Well I would think the idea is that when people are aware of the fact that they have inherent biases and that their perspective is influenced by their lot in life, they're less likely to claim (delusionally) that they are a totally rational person (hint: nobody is). And you definitely hear it the most from MRAs and other young OWNED BY LOGIC types - though not all are white or male. There are certainly dangerous undertones there though. Logic and rationality don't belong to white men, even if immature white males happen to be the most represented in young people overestimating their own rationality. Again, purely on the internet.


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Nov 2, 2016)

I agree that a wage gap exists, but people don't really take into account things like pregnancy, maternity leave, menstrual periods, menopause, etc. Not to mention that men typically work higher-risk jobs than women do. To pin everything on some imaginary sexist menace that's out to get women is silly and childish: the only way to make progress is simply to stop whining and start doing.


----------



## Michel (Nov 2, 2016)

Women are inherently inferior to men in every way.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Oct 20, 2022)

I'm not surprised there are feminists here (I'm not complaining), I'm surprised there are _that many_ in the history of the farms.

I'm not against it, I have friends who are feminists, but I've seen many examples of it being used just to justify misandry.


----------



## Wormy (Nov 12, 2022)

The Cunting Death said:


> I'm not surprised there are feminists here (I'm not complaining), I'm surprised there are _that many_ in the history of the farms.
> 
> I'm not against it, I have friends who are feminists, but I've seen many examples of it being used just to justify misandry.


Considering this is a place that thinks people who need eyeglasses deserve the death penalty, it's downright a MIRACLE.


----------



## SwanSwanson (Nov 15, 2022)

I doubt back when this thread was originally posted there were any radfems posting here, just people who generally believe in equality but don't have any serious hang ups about men. Probably in more recent days you see those types because of the TERF sect within feminism.


----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (Nov 15, 2022)

>Null posting Pennis Drager on a feminist thread

Kiwi Farms hngh


----------

