Feminism

I do not like feminism too much 97% of the people don't in my country. The feminist party gained 3% pretty impressive though.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are after. I'm not saying that it's better or worse to have the voting right. I atleast don't use mine because to me it's all a joke. The people might change but the agenda stays the same.

 

They are different; look in to it. One's gender can be different from their biological sex; biological sex is no more than hormones, chromosomes, genitalia etc - gender is a social thing; gender roles, characteristics and so on.

Yes, I agree with that. As I said; it would be more beneficial to focus on just equality in general; race, religious, gender, sexuality and so on. But, alas, it's easier to band people together and get them to contribute when they alone benefit - humans for the most part are selfish like that.

I would not, however, choose not to support an anti-racism movement because it could come under a bigger umbrella. I don't know of many (besides the femi-nazi ideals) things a feminist group wants to achieve that hinders men in any way; therefore it isn't as counter-productive as the name might suggest.

I'm aware they are just statements, and my real life experiences of watching such discrimination or hearing about it from colleagues and friends (for example; I do know a woman who was denied a job in a trade industry because she was a woman; and was told this) is inductive reasoning to say the least; but shouldn't that be enough for a basic, social movement? If I see one woman discriminated against because of her gender - then I see a need for feminism in that area/in her situation.

It can't be denied that in countries, like Afghanistan for example, where women aren't allowed the entry to school like men are, are wedded at 13 and then live their lives having babies for countless years with men who force the sex upon them; that feminism is maybe needed.

 

I am saying (as I said in my initial post) that pre the suffragist movement, women lacked a right available to men (because women could not vote). This right is also not sex-tailored, and could not be argued to suit men more than women. That is the only point.

 

I disagree with your analysis of gender. I think that your logic makes sense but fails to deal with the real issue. Gender is a social construct in a way that corresponds to how social constructs have to be understood -- it is not even related to sex at all. Instead, we have biological sex and we have the way in which humans perceive themselves. Of course, the latter makes no transformative impact on sex (indeed, it is probably detrimental to the roles of biological sex, as you pointed out) as its essence lies only in the realm of subjective social constructs. It is a recognition of oneself in a similar fashion to law's claim of recognizing persons as possessing legal status (this is a social construct as well). What I mean by this is that just as the way that, for instance, the law viewing a human being is not at all related to the person's biology (i.e. citizenship is not the same category as biology) so is gender's view of a person distinct (although, obviously, gender is an introspective reflection, as separated from the extraspective scope of the law). To articulate my point more clearly: gender does not refer to biology and is a different category of understanding available to human beings. It is not contrary or in accordance with biology because biology is irrelevant to its identity. I think if you deny this point, you must also deny the existence of law (or any social concept mind you) because it derives an understanding of a human being that does not source from -- or rather, does not make claims about -- biology. The reason gender is confused as something of the biological category testifies only to how it ostensibly seems to resemble biology (but this is a deception).

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the flow of the discussion. I agree that it is inappropriate to assert gender in the place of sex. I just wanted to establish gender as a category of a certain kind of introspection. It should follow that the discussion will end; there is nothing more to gender than what you described in your last paragraph.

 

You are just spouting numbers under the assumption that they are supposed to offend in some sort of way. What does a 24% of news articles on global news channels being centered around women add to your argument? I could tell you 2% of sports channels are centered around women, that doesn't have anything to do with women being oppressed in some way, it has to do with markets and viewership.

 

Your response to the Anti-Feminist reply is evasive - it doesn't actually answer the issue of whether or not a man can hit a woman. If it's a silencing tactic, why is it so effective at silencing?

 

That is not what is said. When there is a video, or news report, or story about women beating men anti-feminists ask what would the reaction be if the genders were reversed. We know what would happen because people do social experiments with this situation all the time. When men are attacking women everyone rushes to aid the women and they attack the man. When a women is attacking a man, people ignore it and laugh. This is not a "silencing tactic". It is exposing the fact that feminism is slowly destroying our society by making men subservient to women. Men can get hurt and die. It doesn't matter as long as no women are getting hurt or dying. That is what feminism is. That is what feminism wants. That's why I hate it and that's why it needs to end. It's a sexist, anti-male, hate group that actively oppresses men while victimizing and infantilizing women so that those in power can control them.

 

Just because it's women who make the "rules", doesn't mean feminism isn't needed? Feminism, as I said, isn't anti-men, feminists don't say that men are solely the problem. Women can be anti-feminism too..

I explained that in my post before. Charities and social movements are often specific rather than general umbrellas - I would not, however, be un-supportive of one cause on it's own just because it could be generalised under equality for all.

I often see people replying, without knowing about the subject, "oh, so it's okay if I hit a woman then?" No. No it's not, because it's not ok to hit anyone for no reason. They phrase it as such to shut women & any feminist up, reply with violent remarks.

You're generalising all feminists from your experience with the anti-men femi-nazi's that are louder than the others. Feminism is the desire for men to be EQUAL to women, not subservient to. Most feminists I know are also on the same level with men's rights, men's forced gender roles, characteristics and so on.

 

Then call yourself a egalitarian. Words are not defined by people. They are defined by usage. Feminism is used more extensively by those who hate men and thus its more proper to say that it means the kind of people that hate men.

 

Source? A loud minority does not speak for a not-so-loud majority.

I am a feminist. And obviously I am not anti-men.. I wouldn't want myself to become unequal.

 

Take a philosophy of language class. Your perception of the word 'feminism' is different than my perception of the word 'feminism'. It is a symbol for a much more complex idea. Labels are shortcuts but if people's ideas of the labels are different, meaning gets lost in transmission. Feminism is losing the labelling fight much like liberals lost the labelling fight during the Reagan era.

 

It's marred by extremist movement, and shouldn't be.

 

As is Islam but I given them more benefit of the doubt since it is not based on fake science.

 

What fake science are you referring to..?

 

Can I just clarify, feminism in no way equates to a hatred of men; It is the pursuit of equality between male and female, not a disadvantage either way.