Correct. No one has to have any opinion to suit me.
Do you believe feminism is primarily focused women’s issues to the exclusion of others? Do you believe there are other injustices happening in the world that feminism is not well equipped philosophically to deal with?
Those are honest questions and I expect an articulate response.
Why should feminism be equipped to handle ALL the injustices of the world? Why is the fact that they primarily focus on women’s equality offensive to you, given the sorry state of women’s rights in nearly every country in the world including this one? And just for the record, promoting women’s rights does not result in the removal of men’s rights. Rights are not a zero sum game.
Because this whole tendency among would-be progressives to form groups that care about the rights of one and only one group both leads towards bigotry towards outsiders, and enables the enemies of social progress to play the “divide and conquer” game.
In order to devote time and effort to one worthy thing, I don’t have to devote time and effort to all worthy things.
We all choose our causes and this is one whose disparity in treatment is so great that I even see it in my little westernized, insulated world every single day of my life. Including in this very thread. And that bothers me enough that this is an issue I’m willing to lift my banner up to. That does make me a man hater, that does not minimize any suffering you or other men have in any way, but you’ve got to remember that this isn’t a zero sum game. Caring about women’s rights is not mutually exclusive to caring about men’s rights, or human rights, or the rights of whatever group you care most about.
Ah yes, that’s why that whole thing Martin Luther King Jr did was such a bust-- all he really cared about were the rights of black people. Won’t someone please think of the poor white folks who were suffering, too? Sure, there were some in justices faced by black folks and we can all agree they were bad, but white people had problems, too.
So the requirement then is that if your movement doesn’t paint with all the colors of the wind and consider the plights of every gender, race, and nationality, it is automatically invalid. Yeah. Let me know how that works for you.
I have to say you are on a role here Der Trihs. This man speaks the truth and highlights fallacies in playing a divisive game.
Again, what divisive game is being played? What rights are being taken away from anyone by pursuing the cause of women’s equality?
You know, I don’t even know why I am playing this goddamned game with the group of you that always come out whenever anything about women comes up, just to tell us that we don’t have it that bad and that we shouldn’t be concerned with advancing our own cause because it’s selfish or some shit. Ridiculous.
I would have to say I do not consider myself a feminist because I generally don’t look at issues on the basis of gender. And since this is really the first time I thought about if I was one or not.
Word. I’m genuinely curious how they think little girls in Afghanistan being able to go to school without facing acid attacks or being shot in the head somehow negatively impacts them. What exactly does that take away from you? If I can go get birth control, how does that negatively impact you? If a woman who is raped can go get an abortion or the morning after pill, where is the harm to you? If a little girl can grow up without having her clitoris removed and her vagina sown shut without anesthesia, what’s the negative impact to you? If women can vote or own land or get divorced, what’s the harm to you?
I don’t want to make a call on your personal motivations but that is the game that feminism has been advertising themselves as for about 20 years. It is all bullshit of course but that is that is the standard line.
There are other philosophies that truly do that but feminism tries to trap everyone into their little pseudo-intellectual/religious game filled with all kinds of crackpots and make everyone feel guilty if they don’t agree.
If the motivations were true, feminists wouldn’t have any issues switching over to the newer progressive movements that see both sexes as equal. The feminist conservative/fundamentalist streak contaminated the whole philosophy decades ago and thwarted progress.
Either you can defend your ideas articulately or you can’t and you are a doing a terrible job right now. That has nothing to do with sex. The major point that many of us are bringing up is asking why feminism and women’s issues should take precedence over all others? The secondary question is why do some feminists try to guilt people into identifying with their pseudo-philosophy with that specific name attached if it really is inclusive of all people.
Again, you are ascribing a whole lot of your own (personal and well documented on these boards) baggage against women onto the word “feminist” and basically demanding that they change their name or merge with someone else who is not specifically concerned about the equality of women, because you don’t like the definition of the term as it exists inside your own head.
As a feminist, I have never encountered these crack pots that you refer to. As a man who has well documented issues with women, I am certain that every woman you encounter is a feminist crack pot to you.
It’s always been my feeling that as someone who is pro-life, I’m not welcome among most who call themselves feminists.
I do have a “chicks before dicks” bent to me, though (even though I admittedly love men, particularly ones that smell good). If my gender has ever held me back, I’m not aware of it, but my mom sure did have some weird stuff happen/said to her just because she was female.
Especially the ones he bangs without their knowledge. Some of us would call that rape, but we’re just playing little pseudo-intellectual/religious games filled with all kinds of crackpots and make everyone feel guilty if they don’t agree.
Precedence compared to what? Because the whole world can only work on one problem at a time, so we have to pick what to be concerned about? How about this. Feminists can work on women’s equality. Human rights activists can work on getting minority ethnic populations in sub-saharan Africa the right to vote. Health services activists can work on increasing access to health care, and everybody can work on those problems at the same time. You are trying to ascribe a value system to a group of rights which are not in competition with one another, they can exist at the same time, but they have to all fight their own fight. Diluting the message of one group by lumping them all together and calling them “the group that advocates for everything all the time” will get exactly zero of those things done.
I really don’t think abortion is the best example to use here. I’m pro-choice, but I’ve talked with plenty of pro-life people. As much as people like to frame it as some sort of active, intentional, hate-motivated oppression of women, you have to understand that a lot of people legitimately, truly think of abortion as murder. Most of them would agree that a woman has a right to do what they want with their body, as long as it doesn’t affect anybody else, but to them, “abortion” is affecting somebody else. There are those who think that women “deserve it” for having sex, or whatever, of course, but the vast majority that I’ve personally talked to literally see a woman aborting an embryo or fetus as the same as walking up to 3-month old Little Johnny and plunging a sacrificial dagger in his chest. I can see how legal abortion is literally abhorrent to them, and why, to them, it’s a moral rather than a woman’s rights issue. Even after rape, to them you’re following up a terrible crime done to you (rape), by performing and abhorrent crime yourself (murder).
Again, I’m pro choice and disagree vehemently with them, but I can really see where those people are coming from. It’s out of a compassion for human life, not from a hatred of women.
Cool, then go ahead and remove abortion from my list of items then if it bothers you. I, personally, feel abortion is a women’s rights issue-- as do many others. That doesn’t mean everybody has to feel that way.
So, by all means, you are welcome to address the other items that you appear to not take issue with.
I was just pointing it out, I don’t really have issue with the rest of your list (I could make some minor quibbles on some points, but it’s not really worth it).
Lots of of you would call lots of things rape. That was a simple prank that went wrong and their no banging involved. She is still my friend to this day and we never mentioned it among ourselves. You can’t have a crime if there is no victim and there wasn’t in that case. I certainly wouldn’t fall for that plan again but no harm was done.
I can be as chauvinistic as anyone but I am mystified by this female fascination with rape. The vast majority of women aren’t hot enough to sleep with for paid money let alone thinking that random people want a commit a serious crime to sleep with you.