Failure of Feminism - General

Failure of feminism is like saying failure of math. He's generalizing a whole subject to make his points seem more valid.

[QUOTE=Jimpy;33931348]Failure of feminism is like saying failure of math. He's generalizing a whole subject to make his points seem more valid.[/QUOTE] No it's more like saying failure of being an utter idiot.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;33930121]Turns out, unlike you, I evolved to have the ability wear pants.[/QUOTE] i have foreskin and the ability to wear pants :smug:

[QUOTE=Uncle Bourbon;33932334]i have foreskin and the ability to wear pants :smug:[/QUOTE] Then it sounds like you're carrying a little extra baggage. Snip, snip.

[QUOTE=hamberglar;33933127]Then it sounds like you're carrying a little extra baggage. Snip, snip.[/QUOTE] that technically means i can live without pants

Whole video about feminism, FP talks about who's circumcised. IT'S THE SECRET AGENDA OF THE FEMINISTS!

this is pain go go go

Doesn't really seem like he fulfilled the promise of demonstrating the 'patriarchy' false. He just attacked a strawman and asked a few 'well why is [men's rights issue]?' questions, most of which can be answered pretty easily.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;33935343]Doesn't really seem like he fulfilled the promise of demonstrating the 'patriarchy' false. He just attacked a strawman and asked a few 'well why is [men's rights issue]?' questions, most of which can be answered pretty easily.[/QUOTE] If men control everything and take advantage of women why would men disadvantage themselves at the issues he brought up?

By the definition, everyone in this thread, also The Amazing Atheist, are feminists. I don't know why it's such a negative word these days, for a large bit of modern history in the West, and continuing today, women have been getting the shit end of the stick. Though I can understand why conservatives and such would want to twist the word into a negative meaning. [quote=Wikipedia]Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."[/quote]

men get the short end of the stick as well. sexism is not one-sided misandry leads to misogyny with leads to misandry which leads to misogyny, etc. it's a never-ending cycle of hatred and double-standards

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;33935614]If men control everything and take advantage of women why would men disadvantage themselves at the issues he brought up?[/QUOTE] Well, for example, he asks 'why don't men send women off to fight wars for them?' Men have traditionally in history been seen as the 'stronger sex', and since a patriarchy is based on the idea of men as the 'stronger sex', having women as the fighters would not help that power structure. Besides he defeats his own point on this one; men have almost always been the soldiers throughout history and he brings up this question a minute after saying that the patriarchy idea has been true up until a few decades ago. But anyway you say 'control everything,' and I think that represents the issue I have with his argument. He's certainly right that patriarchy has dissolved massively within the past century, but he seems to completely ignore the possibility that just because men are no longer entrenched as a higher social class with complete control doesn't mean that there isn't still a power imbalance between the sexes which puts women at some disadvantage and can still be viewed as a weakened kind of patriarchy.

The idea that men are inherently strong is both misandristic and misogynistic. It asserts that it's up to men to solve everything while also asserting that women are fragile and need to be protected. Again, nothing is one-sided. A misogynistic view point almost always has an inverse that is misandristic. They both fulfill each other.

Here is a pretty decent video response from someone. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnpvDpVF2kc[/media]

I disagree with him, I'd say that conscription of men only and the differences in male domestic abuse and female domestic abuse were actually supporting the men. It's saying that since men are superior they should be fighting the battles, and it's worse when they stoop to violence.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;33935950]Well, for example, he asks 'why don't men send women off to fight wars for them?' Men have traditionally in history been seen as the 'stronger sex', and since a patriarchy is based on the idea of men as the 'stronger sex', having women as the fighters would not help that power structure. Besides he defeats his own point on this one; men have almost always been the soldiers throughout history and he brings up this question a minute after saying that the patriarchy idea has been true up until a few decades ago. But anyway you say 'control everything,' and I think that represents the issue I have with his argument. He's certainly right that patriarchy has dissolved massively within the past century, but he seems to completely ignore the possibility that just because men are no longer entrenched as a higher social class with complete control doesn't mean that there isn't still a power imbalance between the sexes which puts women at some disadvantage and can still be viewed as a weakened kind of patriarchy.[/QUOTE] So men want to get drafted overseas to kill people and maybe be killed in the name of being the stronger sex? [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] Either way feminism and masculism are retarded. You can't favor only one side and claim you want equality. You're either going for equality or you don't.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;33938075]So men want to get drafted overseas to kill people and maybe be killed in the name of being the stronger sex? [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] Either way feminism and masculism are retarded. You can't favor only one side and claim you want equality. You're either going for equality or you don't.[/QUOTE] You have absolutely no idea what feminism means. Feminism is not pro-female, its anti-masculine societal norms.

[QUOTE=Jimpy;33944973]You have absolutely no idea what feminism means. Feminism is not pro-female, its anti-masculine societal norms.[/QUOTE] That's not necessarily true. Some schools of feminist thought may be the former while others may be the latter, or both. Feminism is not a hive mind.

Only shitty feminists are anti-masculine oriented, but yeah I'd prefer if people used the term humanist because there are issues of inequality from both sides anyways.

The actual problem with feminism nowadays is a lot of it is just poorly disguised misandry and the actual feminists who stand for the equal rights of women don't really get heard because loud mouth men haters spout their nonsense and the media plays on that.

[QUOTE=Jimpy;33944973]You have absolutely no idea what feminism means. Feminism is not pro-female, its anti-masculine societal norms.[/QUOTE] Which is still fighting for the equality of just one side? Which is not equality at all?

Yes. Yes it is. If one side is equal so is the other. Thats pretty much the definition.

[QUOTE=Vasili;33945627]The actual problem with feminism nowadays is a lot of it is just poorly disguised misandry and the actual feminists who stand for the equal rights of women don't really get heard because loud mouth men haters spout their nonsense and the media plays on that.[/QUOTE] That's not it at all. The decent feminist academics never get reported on, whereas one batshit gendercidal nutjob with a blog will say something which is kind of what you said, but you started off with " a lot of it is just poorly disguised misandry" [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] a tangible instance of how sexism affects men is why male suicides are so much higher because men aren't supposed to be emotional good job rationality just fuck everything up [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FlashStock;33927859][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Nw3zyYpvs[/media][/QUOTE] typical stupid White male commenting on shit he has no idea about now I will continue to watch the rest of it. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] here's another instance, using content from that video, of how the oppression of women affects men If women are supposed to be fragile, weak, in need of protecting and so on, correspondingly men have to be stoic, strong and the protector Domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously predominately because of absurdly of the 'by definition' fragile and weak person abusing the 'stoic and strong' role

[QUOTE=Killuah;33958642]Yes. Yes it is. If one side is equal so is the other. Thats pretty much the definition.[/QUOTE] You just don't get it do you? If there are advantages of men over women and women over men in different areas and you fight only the advantages of men over women you are not fighting for equality. You would if you would fight for both. Get it? Say you have won everything and there are no more advantages of men over women. With your objective complete advantages of women over men still exist. It's not equality. Now just don't be an idiot and don't dismiss the fact that there are advantages of women over men. Like every feminist nutjob. [QUOTE=Contag;33958679]here's another instance, using content from that video, of how the oppression of women affects men If women are supposed to be fragile, weak, in need of protecting and so on, correspondingly men have to be stoic, strong and the protector Domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously predominately because of absurdly of the 'by definition' fragile and weak person abusing the 'stoic and strong' role[/QUOTE] So I guess that makes domestic abuse against men okay? Or you're explaining something we already know? Yeah that's the explanation of it, and?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;33963275]So I guess that makes domestic abuse against men okay? Or you're explaining something we already know? Yeah that's the explanation of it, and?[/QUOTE] at what point did I say that made violence against men okay? what the fuck is wrong you? I wasn't even responding to you Any credible feminist goes beyond some simplistic model of man over woman, and takes into account that sexism effects both sexes negatively Personally I'd go even further and say that any credible feminist also takes into account kyriarchal systems and the wide range of intersection between sexism, racism, ableism and so on [editline]31st December 2011[/editline] Going to comment at all CheeseMan?

Isn't the "male-feminism" called chauvinism?

[QUOTE=Contag;33964180]at what point did I say that made violence against men okay? what the fuck is wrong you? I wasn't even responding to you Any credible feminist goes beyond some simplistic model of man over woman, and takes into account that sexism effects both sexes negatively Personally I'd go even further and say that any credible feminist also takes into account kyriarchal systems and the wide range of intersection between sexism, racism, ableism and so on [/QUOTE] What was the point explaining it then?

[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;33964338]Isn't the "male-feminism" called chauvinism?[/QUOTE] You got the wrong term, chauvinism is a drastic form of nationalism ...or maybe not, it's both

[QUOTE=Contag;33958679]That's not it at all. The decent feminist academics never get reported on, whereas one batshit gendercidal nutjob with a blog will say something which is kind of what you said, but you started off with " a lot of it is just poorly disguised misandry" [/QUOTE] that's just personal opinion both ways, you saying its not correct is on the same terms that saying a lot of 'feminists' are just misanthropists. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;33963275] So I guess that makes domestic abuse against men okay? Or you're explaining something we already know? Yeah that's the explanation of it, and?[/QUOTE] Men abused by their wives or other females usually goes unreported by men mainly out of fear of judgement for appearing weak to not handle a woman, there was a case here in the UK when a man was laughed at by male officers and told to go home after he reported abuse from his wife. Though Contag didn't say imply at all that its justified, he was merely explaining a reason. Its a similar thing to a lot of rape cases, especially male rape victims.

[QUOTE=Vasili;33966856]that's just personal opinion both ways, you saying its not correct is on the same terms that saying a lot of 'feminists' are just misanthropists.[/QUOTE] I think you mean misandrists there, and yeah, it is just a personal opinion. However, I think there are alot of good feminists out there who definitely do not deserve to be lumped with the violent nutters calling for killing all males, because, honestly, they're fucking nuts and no one should ever pay them any attention at all