You’ve never seen that? I definitely have.
In some cases, it might barely make sense, if the assumption is that everyone else fighting is a soldier and if in whatever culture, women and children aren’t. But I reject that assumption because all men are never soldiers either. The thinking that puts men into the “soldier” category while women and children are “noncombatants” leads to horrors like Srebrenica.
No, equality regardless of gender is equality. Equality regardless of race is equality. Equality regardless of sexual orientation is equality. ‘Equality’ that attacks ‘MRAs’ is not equality. An ideology that works actively against equality (as NOW did, against equal parenting, for example), is not an egalitarian ideology. It has no interest in equality.
My feelings were not hurt. I don’t attach that much value to grammar that your ludicrous assertion that ‘he’ could be addressed to me would hurt my feelings. I think I’d feel wounded in my sense of self-respect if I tried to pitch that argument, but perhaps your self-respect is more resilient.
I probably have but for whatever reason it hasn’t stuck in my memory.
What evidence? Which posts?
To me that’s the same thing, so no, I don’t oppose that.
When I see attempts at suppression of evidence, I’ll oppose it.
You don’t agree that men shouldn’t be virgin-shamed, or mocked for lack of sex? You don’t agree that rape in prison is a real problem? You don’t agree that people shouldn’t be treated equally and fairly regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation? You don’t agree that gay marriage should be legal? You don’t agree that science is the best tool for understanding the world around us? You don’t agree that evolution and not ‘creation science’ should be taught in schools?
From what I can tell, we agree on plenty of things.
I’m unaware of NOW working actively against equality. From my understanding they have done much work in favor of equality. Care to cite how they have opposed equal parenting?
I’m very pleased I didn’t hurt your feelings. From your complaint I was worried that I did, but this makes me happy. Thank you!
Because, Jack, whatever “gang” you’re in, I want no part of it. You’re leaping around this thread, making nonsensical claims of personal remarks or attacks in response to some fairly neutral statements (like is it possible that more feminists are like the ones in this thread? - AHA Personal remark! or even Slow down and re-read that - AHA Personal attack!!
You claim to not “notice” any feminists who say the things feminists have been saying in this very thread, who aren’t yelling about toxic masculinity. Yet you have been presumably reading and certainly responding to a large number of feminists in this thread. How many self-professed feminists do you know, that you are able to so confidently state what their ideology is? I know a lot, and I am one, so I feel pretty confident in saying that the ridiculous ideas put forth as “evidence” of the toxic nature of feminism are loony, fringe beliefs. You are standing outside the group, and saying that the edges you see are the bulk of it. All of the feminists I know believe in equality. Not misandry, though I am sure they are out there. But the toxic ones do not make up the bulk *in my experience. *
At best, I feel you’re not arguing in good faith. You are not “honestly and earnestly trying to engage” anyone. You misinterpret statements that have been made. You bounced all around about how ridiculous that anyone could not know about the [UK] suffragists – all the while, you were completely ignorant of any suffrage movement outside your own country. Perhaps feminism is radically different in the U.K.
So, no, I don’t want you in my “gang,” whatever you think it is. And I don’t want to be in yours.
To me this is like a non-Muslim telling a crowd of Muslims what Islam is about. I don’t think the Muslims need cites to tell the non-Muslim that he’s wrong about Islam.
Islamic people go like this and non-Islamic people go like this.
It’s funny 'cause it’s true!
A quick search, less than the amount of time you’ve spent debating and quoting others, would’ve let you know, quite easily, that I’m very much a woman. In fact, in either this or another one of LinusK’s repetitive threads, I’ve mentioned my encounters with sexism and harassment.
Again, what you say do not represent the feminists I know. My dad is one, many of my male friends and exes consider themselves feminists (the ones who have mentioned it, the rest I don’t know), many coworkers as well.
You seem to be someone who writes a string of words together that don’t make much sense, then when people ask and question what exactly those words are meaning together, you either dismiss them as not smart enough, or condemn them for “twisting your words”, when they’re just repeating what you’ve typed for confirmation that it is, indeed, your writing.
I don’t hate anyone, that’s too much emotion and negativity. I’m all for emotion, but that is costly and wasting it on negativity is fruitless.
OP’s central premise is that men make sacrifices and work while women enjoy men’s protection. He has brought up the “women are ornaments, men are appliances” line at least twice in this thread. (Edited to add) And there is also the “if all men disappear women would be living in stone age” claim early on in the thread, that is in line with this claim.
I also asked him to state what he considers “loony” feminist positions. He has not.
Like there are a trillion post on SDMB on what Christianity is and hardly a Christian in sight.
Logic dictates that “gender equality” is a necessary though not sufficient condition for “overall equality.” In other word, your claim of support for equality is not correct if it does not include gender equality; if it does, it includes one of the core principles of feminism.
And surely you’ve heard of third world feminism and Marxist feminism?
I would oppose any efforts by non-Christians in telling Christians what Christianity is supposedly “really about”.
How many of them had any power at all? I’d like to see some anecdotes describing feminists who meet any of these criteria:
-Control an organization (profit or nonprofit or governmental) with an annual budget of at least $10 million.
-Have ever had a book on a bestseller list.
-Have ever held elected political office at the national level.
-Have ever had a primary role on a politics show on television or radio.
Because I can tell you about many feminists who meet one or more of these criteria who don’t hold loony views. I maintain that you can’t name more than one who does.
Here’s my off-the-cuff list to begin with:
-Hillary Clinton
-Sheryl Sandberg
-Barack Obama
-Gloria Steinem
-Elizabeth Warren
-Bernie Sanders
These are folks that are feminists and mainstream, using a very wide net to catch “mainstream.” Now you: cite some feminists who are famous for something other than a blog or a university-published book or a stunt, some feminists who are genuinely mainstream and not fringe, who have objectionable views.
I’m glad that most feminists you know would argue for more equal distribution of parenting responsibilities. However, I was talking about what happens after a marriage breaks down.
In those cases feminists are notably absent when in comes to advocating for equal distribution to parenting responsibilities. In fact, they actively oppose it.
From The Atlantic:
From Thought Catalog:
From Salon:
From the National Organization of Women:
I don’t engage in rational argument with people who are unwilling or unable to respond in kind. It only encourages more nonsense on part of the empirically-challenged.
According to this link, NOW opposes shared parenting in divorces without regard for gender… if the dad was the primary childcare provider, then NOW supports giving the dad primary custody, barring abuse.
I don’t know if that’s better for kids than equally shared custody- I would imagine it depends on the specifics of each circumstance. But it’s not necessarily anti-father, especially because NOW supports fathers being more involved in the domestic work of childcare.