Calling All Feminists

[Capitalist Pig]

Hello, feminists. Over the years I have heard a lot of talk about what feminism is not. For example, feminism is not;

• misandry,
• a front for lesbians to turn straight women gay,
• lesbians with penis envy,
• or another way to rebel against your father.

So my question is: What the fuck is feminism? Please provide simple, easy to understand answers that use plain language, because neologisms and SJW buzzwords give me a headache and I tune out instantly. The parlance of feminists, LGBTQ activists, and related movements do not speak to my perspective, or give me a conversational frame of reference. I don't want to consult Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary every five words per paragraph.

Thank you.

[Spermatozoa]

Feminists insist that their movement is only concerned with making men and women equal. However, the general public understands "equality" to mean equal opportunities to succeed and impartiality before the law. Women in the West are not being denied the opportunity to succeed. They are certainly not discriminated against legally, in many cases the opposite is true. Therefore, I strongly suspect that feminists have something else in mind when they refer to "equality".

I have noticed that feminists will attack anyone who dares to examine the many biological differences that exist between men and women. Look at what happened to the author of the infamous Google memo recently. He lost his job simply for pointing out that men and women, whites and blacks, whatever groups you choose to compare, have measurably different qualities. Crucially, many of these qualities have a psychological impact and affect our choices and abilities. In other words, a disparity often exists for a reason, and it's not usually the result of one group sadistically oppressing another.

Feminists have turned biological diversity into a moral issue, by refusing to accept that some inequality between people is natural and inevitable. To feminists (and again, the left in general - they are just one arm of it really) it is evil and unjust that some people are more talented/successful/attractive than others. Many of them are so hateful that they want to eradicate sex and race differences by force, just to ensure equal outcomes.

People like this have no respect for individual freedom, and you cannot reason or negotiate with them.

[Olimpia]

Feminists insist that their movement is only concerned with making men and women equal. However, the general public understands "equality" to mean equal opportunities to succeed and impartiality before the law. Women in the West are not being denied the opportunity to succeed. They are certainly not discriminated against legally, in many cases the opposite is true. Therefore, I strongly suspect that feminists have something else in mind when they refer to "equality".

I have noticed that feminists will attack anyone who dares to examine the many biological differences that exist between men and women. Look at what happened to the author of the infamous Google memo recently. He lost his job simply for pointing out that men and women, whites and blacks, whatever groups you choose to compare, have measurably different qualities. Crucially, many of these qualities have a psychological impact and affect our choices and abilities. In other words, a disparity often exists for a reason, and it's not usually the result of one group sadistically oppressing another.

Feminists have turned biological diversity into a moral issue, by refusing to accept that some inequality between people is natural and inevitable. To feminists (and again, the left in general - they are just one arm of it really) it is evil and unjust that some people are more talented/successful/attractive than others. Many of them are so hateful that they want to eradicate sex and race differences by force, just to ensure equal outcomes.

People like this have no respect for individual freedom, and you cannot reason or negotiate with them.

I identify as being a Liberal, so technically I am "on the left", but I don't consider myself to be a feminist, due to the issue(s) you have addressed above amongst others, like those that Cpig has mentioned.

I don't think it is "evil" or "unjust" that there are differences between the genders or people's talents and capabilities; it's natural.

And as you said, women and men have technically equal opportunities in the West. Legally, we are "equal" in that respect. However, we aren't the same when it comes to our abilities and biological drives, for the most part. For instance, the debate on more women being admitted into the army just so that there are more women is stupid to me. Men are stronger and more physically capable than women, on average. Just look at our physical differences; men have stronger upper body strength, etc. If a woman cannot pass the test, she shouldn't be admitted. Lowering the standards of the test just lowers the quality of the entire operation. And this principle applies to anything, especially jobs and professions. If a woman has the capability to be admitted to a certain position, then of course she should have the right to attain that position. If she cannot do so, she has to suck it up.

I am not a fan of the terminology, but I am more or less forced to admit that modern third-wave feminism is technically part of the "Radical Left" nowadays, at least in the West. Considering that men and women are technically "equal" in the West, their position emerges as something radical and ultimately unnecessary. Nations and countries where the women are actually seriously oppressed and could benefit from a healthy dose of feminism are strongly lacking in feminist movements. It seems like in order to be a feminist, you need to be somewhat privileged already. In a truly oppressed country, you'd get thrown in jail, or even worse killed for going against the norms and declaring feminism and women's rights. In the West, women can say whatever they want and get away with it. The tide has turned, and now men have to be very careful about what they say, otherwise they get bombarded with an onslaught of enraged feminist ("queer") women. It's like a woman can do no wrong, and men do everything wrong and have to prove themselves first. I don't think that's fair.

Anyhow, I am only participating in this convo because I am tired of seeing people equate anything Left with Feminism. You can be Liberal and not a Feminist. Though sure, (most modern) Feminists are by definition (Radical) Lefties.

[Spermatozoa]

Anyhow, I am only participating in this convo because I am tired of seeing people equate anything Left with Feminism. You can be Liberal and not a Feminist. Though sure, Feminists are by definition (Radical) Lefties.

Liberalism is philosophically very distinct from Marxism, and it is the latter which we are discussing.

[Raver]

I am not a feminist, but in a nutshell: first wave feminism = necessary for women, second wave feminism = good for women, third wave feminism = detrimental for society IMO.

[Spermatozoa]

BTW: Feminists absolutely hate being called "Marxists" and especially "Cultural Marxists". However, as both terms accurately describe their ideology, they should be used any time you debate a feminist and she reverts to talking points about oppression, social justice, discrimination or racism.

Blow their cover, and you will remove their credibility as activists.

[epheme]

Feminism (to me) is when a women is living the life she chooses to live (whatever that may be).

[Capitalist Pig]

Feminism (to me) is when a women is living the life she chooses to live (whatever that may be).

So far, you have my favorite answer.

[Kim]

Feminism (to me) is when a women is living the life she chooses to live (whatever that may be).

Without being groped, cat-called, ridiculed, talked down to, treated like a breeding machine, slut-shamed, pressured to look a certain way, and having to listen to the whining of men who don't realize that the reason they don't get laid is their shitty attitude, not feminists (see this thread). Among other things.

[Spermatozoa]

Without being groped

Most people consider this to sexual harassment whether they are feminists or not.

cat-called,

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.

ridiculed, talked down to,

This is mostly done by women to each other.

treated like a breeding machine,

Thanks for sharing your sexual fantasy with us

slut-shamed, pressured to look a certain way,

Again this is done by women to each other, not by men to women.

and having to listen to the whining of men who don't realize that the reason they don't get laid is their shitty attitude, not feminists (see this thread). Among other things.

The reason men like me are opposed to feminism is because of the ideology that underpins it. That is all.

[Kim]

Most people consider this to sexual harassment whether they are feminists or not.



Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.



This is mostly done by women to each other.



Thanks for sharing your sexual fantasy with us



Again this is done by women to each other, not by men to women.



The reason men like me are opposed to feminism is because of the ideology that underpins it. That is all.

I should have added mansplaining to the list. We are tired of men telling us what it's like to be a woman.

[Spermatozoa]

I should have added mansplaining to the list. We are tired of men telling us what it's like to be a woman.

Do you seriously believe that men "slut-shame", "ridicule" and "talk down" to women more than other women do?!?

[Singu]

It's the universal belief that women should be free from historical, systematic or societal/cultural oppression, which should obviously, span across all cultures, countries and races.

[ooo]

All men should be feminists.

[Spermatozoa]

All men should be feminists.

A feminist society massively reduces the odds of reproductive success for most men.

As I have already explained why in a recent post, I won't repeat myself. Read this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...46#post1214046

[ooo]

A feminist society massively reduces the odds of reproductive success for most men.

As I have already explained why in a recent post, I won't repeat myself. Read this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...46#post1214046

Thanks for sparing me all your amount of bs... oh wait, Medusa just provided that!
lol

go read some books ppz

[Olimpia]

Thanks for sparing me all your amount of bs... oh wait, Medusa just provided that!
lol

go read some books ppz

Which books are you recommending?

[Spermatozoa]

Thanks for sparing me all your amount of bs... oh wait, Medusa just provided that!
lol

go read some books ppz

It is very revealing that you don't even attempt to present a case for your perspective here. Instead, you just purse your lips and say: "Go read some books".

Newsflash, actual experience is a far better teacher than books. I have spent time around "oppressed", "victimized" groups of people in their own countries, and every society they control is quickly driven into the dirt. Do you want your children to live under the same corruption, crime and chaos that plagues the ahem, "developing" world? If not, you need to stop seeing things in terms of right and wrong, and start considering what's best for your own future.

[Spermatozoa]

Again I am sorry to make this a typology issue, but I just can't help but notice time after time, it is IEE and EII who make these bleeding heart, self-destructive and utterly thoughtless comments.

They are so self-righteous that they can't see the damage their ideology has already caused. Broken families, and a depressed, anxious, rootless generation. Loss of community and identity. A rise of hedonistic lust, and avoidance of genuine love and intimacy. But it doesn't matter to them how many people lose their jobs, their dignity or their lives - as long as we are more diverse! More tolerant! Free love!!!

I am sick of that smug bullshit, things are worse than ever. It is time to shut down the freak show.

[ooo]

They are so self-righteous that they can't see the damage their ideology has already caused. Broken families, and a depressed, anxious, rootless generation. Loss of community and identity. A rise of hedonistic lust, and avoidance of genuine love and intimacy. But it doesn't matter to them how many people lose their jobs, their dignity or their lives - as long as we are more diverse! More tolerant! Free love!!!

Oh man you're so enlightened look at you, you know it all eh?
Move to Russia man, they've allowed domestic violence last December, I'm sure all your testosterone and real good old values will have all the masculine freedom you wish.

[ooo]

wtv book as long as u dnt get informed on wikipedia or youtube (or the16types.com) ^^

recipe books would be a good start

[Olimpia]

wtv book as long as u dnt get informed on wikipedia or youtube (or the16types.com) ^^

recipe books would be a good start

Seems like you haven't read any "good books" on the subject yourself, otherwise you could recommend me some...

Besides, I have been studying a Humanitarian subject in University, and inevitably was confronted with feminist ideology. I wouldn't say I am very well-informed on the subject, but I am familiar with the general ideology and common terms like "the patriarchy", etc.

[ooo]

@Medusa
that was really a joke, get a culture, that's what I meant, yeah. Read newspapers, look at the world around you and even a bit further, is it pro women? It is becoming, yes, but without a feminist push we would still be at the point where females were not allowed to join study circles, vote, be allowed inside administrations, etc. That wasn't too long ago, do you think we've achieved it all? Really? How naive. Again, go read some books, recipe books are really enlightening ; )

@Cuivivien
yes reading is just good you know, you'd avoid repeating some mass stereotype that just show how much of a sheep you are.

You don't realize that as long as women will keep being considered "weaker" or "to protect" or even nearly as close to having achieved men's actual freedom... men too won't be free?
If we apply a label to a group, it will inevitably put a label to the other part too.
Equality is really freedom, your hate for feminists is just as blind as you are.

[idontgiveaf]

It's an overrated shit

[ooo]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-women/534306/

if you happen to read this you'll notice all this daily violence is really tied to a racist mentality too, in a word: ignorance.

This is the reality of the fight, then yeah... there are the pictures of the stereotyped movements given by some internet article.. pft

(oh and the same just goes on in my european developed country)

[ooo]

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mass-...ety-jolyn-khew
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0aec9f3552fb9

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/he...-a7837181.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/south...angnam-seoul-1
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYfJfCeQ8As&t=633s)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ender-research
https://www.southernearlychildhood.o..._A_Cameron.pdf

[Kim]

I propose to make it mandatory for anyone who rails against feminism to offer their definition of feminism first.

@Capitalist Pig I hate to tell you, but I would consider you a feminist. I am so so sorry....

[Capitalist Pig]

@Capitalist Pig I hate to tell you, but I would consider you a feminist. I am so so sorry....

Maybe. I wouldn't rule it out. But I don't like to associate myself with things I don't understand.

[Spermatozoa]

I propose to make it mandatory for anyone who rails against feminism to offer their definition of feminism first.

I already have: "Conflict theory applied to issues of sex/gender."

[Chae]

So my question is: What the fuck is feminism?

I think this is a good question. Did you watch Mad Max: Fury Road? (Which is not a movie, it's a magnificent epiphany.) This moment describes the essence and great goal. I want to express a thousand words but it speaks for itself.



This is everything you'll ever need to know.
& that's it from me now.

[Olimpia]

I've got a question for those who call themselves feminists:

Do you expect a guy to verbally ask you for your sexual consent?

As in, do you expect a guy to verbally ask you if he can kiss or have sex with you, etc.?

If not, what else do you expect in that context?

[ashlesha]

there are a wide range of answers, obviously, even among feminists, and there are factions that disagree among them. I'd say it's the acknowledgment of and focus on a wide range of issues as they pertain to women, ranging from street harassment to domestic violence to human trafficking, and the prioritization of these issues differs from person to person. the larger cohesive element is the idea that the historical and continuing power structure is unfavorable to and restrictive towards women generally, on a systemized level or a social level, or both, and in different ways globally.

I was going to pm you a longer answer but it would probably be tl;dr and lately I haven't found that expending energy discussing this topic is worth the payoff.

[FDG]

the larger cohesive element is the idea that the historical and continuing power structure is unfavorable to and restrictive towards women generally, on a systemized level or a social level, or both, and in different ways globally.
.

this gives me an opportunity to state my somewhat peculiar objection to feminism - actually the continuing power structure is unfavorable not just towards women but also towards a great majority of men, so the real issue is not about sex but about clan-like violence, mobbing, disrespect towards other humans, and so on...

[Pallas]

this gives me an opportunity to state my somewhat peculiar objection to feminism - actually the continuing power structure is unfavorable not just towards women but also towards a great majority of men, so the real issue is not about sex but about clan-like violence, mobbing, disrespect towards other humans, and so on...

All the problems that feminism and "men's rights" (I wish this term could go to a real thing, but they do bring up real issues at least) try to address come from colonialism. The British Empire spread around the world, and look at the social structures that existed then.
The average Victorian book gives you a good sense of it, and you should know some Shakespeare too to get more of an idea of what a role-based society looks like. Between Shakespeare and the Romantic period, you have a shift from a role-based society (glorified in Medieval sagas and mocked in Titus Andronicus), in which people legitimately identify with other people, to an individualistic one.

It's a sort of faux individualism that goes to people who are trying to get to the top of the pecking order in the colonial system though, "individuality for me because I'm good, stereotypes for you because you're not" ("intersectionality" in Tumblrspeak). This disadvantages women more visibly, because they are excluded from the public sphere, so their protests are public. But it also disadvantages men, because not all men want to do nothing but fight their way up to the top for money at the expense of everything else, and the private is private, so how can you protest there if you're losing custody of your children or whatever other issue? But on the other hand, that's decently compensated for through public power. And if you want to do something that has nothing to do with colonialism or even hurts it, you're screwed regardless of sex. Look at the really great world-changing people. There's a higher percentage of women there than there are CEOs that people always throw around as a statistic but no one can actually name. Marie Curie is the only person with two Nobel Prizes in science, and isn't science supposed to be so manly? There's also a lot of other weirdness that's not particularly relevant besides gender stuff, and most of these people are distinctly not from imperial England or its descendants.

And the last point, which is why both "SJWs" and "anti-SJWs" annoy me to no end: you're both just these British colonial types vying for more money and power. SJWs are more traditionally disadvantaged in the public sphere in Anglo-Saxon society, and anti-SJWs are traditionally advantaged, but both of their ideologies are made up based on what would help them individually get more money and power, because they're in an about equal position. SJW-ism isn't really revolutionary, anti-SJW-ism isn't really traditional, and minorities and people in other countries don't believe those ideologies, even if they often have other herd ideologies that can look similar. Go talk to some, if you're not afraid of being contaminated or whatever, and be really honest with yourself. And really, SJWs and anti-SJWs: you wouldn't keep fighting if you really believed you were above it, just like how you don't say "at least I'm not homeless like you!" and blow raspberries when you see homeless people on the streets.

If someone disagrees and wants to prove me wrong, I'd appreciate that. Standard rhetoric about "the patriarchy" (from either side) is not going to cut it. To me, this argument is so obvious if you read books and know cultural things and not just political rhetoric and groupthink, but I might've tried to condense what'd need to be at least a 20-page essay into one post and ruined it.

[Number 9 large]

Feminism is just women endlessly complaining and blaming their problems on men.

[Spermatozoa]

No, what we really have is a Delta NF movement hostile to competition, overt passion and intensity, fixed commitments and roles.

[Kim]

No, what we really have is a Delta NF movement hostile to competition, overt passion and intensity, fixed commitments and roles.

Not hostile to competition, but hostile to the assumption that everyone starts from an equal playing field. I have to work harder than my male colleagues to be respected. It's a thing, believe me. It shouldn't be like this. There is a lot of passion and intensity in exposing yourself to the suffering of others and supporting them. Or in living as a trans woman who is trying not to get harassed and killed. Contemporary feminism is trying to be inclusive and since suffering is intersectional, there is a lot of passion, courage, and commitment in the movement. Just not along tired old 1950s gender roles. We want to be individuals, not by default mothers and housewives (that should be a choice).

[FDG]

Not hostile to competition, but hostile to the assumption that everyone starts from an equal playing field. I have to work harder than my male colleagues to be respected.

And I have to work harder than some female colleagues to be respected, since I´m in a different line of work. I don´t believe it´s that easy.

[Kim]

And I have to work harder than some female colleagues to be respected, since I´m in a different line of work. I don´t believe it´s that easy.

Of course it does not apply everywhere, but I would still say women overall have a harder time "proving competence" and having their looks factor into equations (positive or negative).

[Slade]

Of course it does not apply everywhere, but I would still say women overall have a harder time "proving competence" and having their looks factor into equations (positive or negative).

Everyone's looks factor into equations, even men's. To say its 'harder' comparatively is just ignorant.