Is feminism evil? (3 Viewers)

[kaz1]

I think such a thing shouldn't exist in the first place. Everyone should be equal. Equal rights, equal benefits, equal punishment. Gender Equality. However at the current time, i do encourage Feminism as i think it is preferably needed, although at this time it is INDEFINITELY a different lifestyle for women, then say about 50 years ago. But yet i believe more work is needed to enhance lifestyle of women. Once again, HOWEVER i dislike and do NOT encourage feminists who's aim is to get power over men or use such a notion to their advantage in life, this defeats the purpose of what we should be and what we shouldn't.

but why "Equal rights, equal benefits, equal punishment" when Men are clearly better than wimmen

 

[FreeLearner]

To be honest I think both males and females should be equal in their respective areas, since in the end "men are men" "women are women" , we were each created for a reason. Although by all means all essential rights must be given to women. However, feminists I think should not go overboard, since they've pretty much got all that men possess, I'm not sure of what more they can get? :S

 

[funkshen]

you do realise that giving women "equal voting" means they can vote in women-specific legislation

so that's pretty much the only right they actually 'deserve'

 

[Absolutezero]

To be honest I think both males and females should be equal in their respective areas, since in the end "men are men" "women are women" , we were each created for a reason. Although by all means all essential rights must be given to women. However, feminists I think should going overboard, since they've pretty much got all that men possess, I'm not sure of what more they can get? :S

There's a lot of underlying things that still exist. Masculine dominant language structure, institutions, perceptions. It'll go with time, but there's still a lot that needs to be addressed.

 

[FreeLearner]

but why "Equal rights, equal benefits, equal punishment" when Men are clearly better than wimmen

I wouldn't say men are better than women, were both equal human beings, however each gender should be based around their physical characteristics and roles, like men can't bear children only women can, and most women can't be labourers for obvious scientifically-proven physical reasons...etc.

 

[funkshen]

when will the male-female height inequality be addressed? this is a shocking injustice perpetrated by men worldwide

 

[kfnmpah]

lol feminism isn't evil, but inverse feminism is.

Bitches aren't happy no matter what. Women want everything to be equal; gender should be a non issue like the colour of someone's skin should be, but if you don't hold the door open for them, you're a massive dick.

lol and you can't run at me because a) i'm a girl you could hurt me and b) i'm on my period so anything i say or do that is cruel is justified by my hormonal fluctuations, ass hole!

 

[eshay lad 69]

lol @ feminists ITT


Feminists dont want equal rights for women, they want more rights than men. ATM they have all the same rights as men, yet they still complain and expect to be treated better by men(white knights).

-they talk about equal rights but if a women hits me apparently i'm not allowed to hit her back because she's not equal to me.
-women want to be in the army yet they are 5 foot 4 and weigh 60 kilos? i wouldnt want one next to me but they bitch and moan about not having the same privleges.
-using having kids as an excuse for employment and complaining about. how hard it its
-getting half (or more) of divorce settlements but not working a day in their life.

 

[Absolutezero]

Feminism is more than just rights, there's a whole current of others ideas that goes with it. And your right about some of the 'reverse feminism' claims, but it's a state of progress and, for the most part; feminists are looking for equality not superiority.

 

[Lentern]

4chan didn't coin the phrase white knight you goose

Don't pretend you didn't understand what I meant. You and I both know it's 4chan or like minded folk who are responsible for the current common usage as a disparaging term for a man who doesn't carry on like some sex craved misogynistic tosspot.

 

[funkshen]

Don't pretend you didn't understand what I meant. You and I both know it's 4chan or like minded folk who are responsible for the current common usage as a disparaging term for a man who doesn't carry on like some sex craved misogynistic tosspot.

no im sorry but 4chan is not responsible for the use of the phrase in modern parlance, though they may use it a fair bit. and if you think 4chan is full of sex craved misogynistic tosspots you are mistaken

not that 4chan isn't the arse end of the internet, mind you

anyways i would say modern feminism, though not quite 'evil, isn't a force for good. without any legal discrimination women are free to to pursue any civil or criminal claims which is 99.999% of what 'feminists' are actually concerned about (e.g. workplace harassment). i can fully sympathise with anyone who's aim is to redress any inequalities under the law. i also respect groups addressing the plight of women in the third world (however misguided or imperialist their project really is). however, i find that the modern feminist political platform is either fallacious (e.g. wage disparity) or privilege-seeking. i think that, largely, the legitimate issues women do face are beyond the purview of government. feminism is therefore no longer an issue of justice, but special interests.

 

[iBibah]

lol @ feminists ITT


Feminists dont want equal rights for women, they want more rights than men. ATM they have all the same rights as men, yet they still complain and expect to be treated better by men(white knights).

-they talk about equal rights but if a women hits me apparently i'm not allowed to hit her back because she's not equal to me.
-women want to be in the army yet they are 5 foot 4 and weigh 60 kilos? i wouldnt want one next to me but they bitch and moan about not having the same privleges.
-using having kids as an excuse for employment and complaining about. how hard it its
-getting half (or more) of divorce settlements but not working a day in their life.

-Also typically the women get custody over the children in a divorce. I asked why and i was told "They are the primary care givers and its their job/they do it better".

So if it's their job to take care of kids than its the mans job to work? No that's sexist....

 

[Lentern]

anyways i would say modern feminism, though not quite 'evil, isn't a force for good. without any legal discrimination women are free to to pursue any civil or criminal claims which is 99.999% of what 'feminists' are actually concerned about (e.g. workplace harassment). i can fully sympathise with anyone who's aim is to redress any inequalities under the law. i also respect groups addressing the plight of women in the third world (however misguided or imperialist their project really is). however, i find that the modern feminist political platform is either fallacious (e.g. wage disparity) or privilege-seeking. i think that, largely, the legitimate issues women do face are beyond the purview of government. feminism is therefore no longer an issue of justice, but special interests.

Wrong

 

[funkshen]

Wrong

an excellent riposte

 

[Absolutezero]

an excellent riposte

I think it's because you've over-simplified/misrepresented the modern feminist position. Most of third/post feminism is about either the rights of the 'non-rich, non-white' women, or about finding a basis of equality.

Your focusing on what would generally be considered more fringe/extreme feminist positions.

 

[funkshen]

I think it's because you've over-simplified/misrepresented the modern feminist position. Most of third/post feminism is about either the rights of the 'non-rich, non-white' women, or about finding a basis of equality.

Your focusing on what would generally be considered more fringe/extreme feminist positions.

no im not, i didn't even identify any positions other than wage disparity. but please, enlighten me on the struggles of the struggles of 'non-rich, non-white' women, and why that means women are deserving of anything more than equal treatment under the law. don't know what a 'basis of equality' is, sounds like weasel words for privilege seeking though.

consider this. the US department of education is considering gender quotas in STEM enrolments in american universities. is this lunacy a fringe or extreme position, or not? what is the criteria for labeling anything as such?

 

[iBibah]

Wrong

I beg to differ.

 

[iBibah]

I think it's because you've over-simplified/misrepresented the modern feminist position. Most of third/post feminism is about either the rights of the 'non-rich, non-white' women, or about finding a basis of equality.

Your focusing on what would generally be considered more fringe/extreme feminist positions.

I must admit I do that a fair bit....

 

[Absolutezero]

no im not, i didn't identify any positions. but please, enlighten me on the struggles of the struggles of 'non-rich, non-white' women though, and why that means women are deserving of anything more than equal treatment under the law.

I don't think they're deserving of anything more than equal treating. I agree with you on that point. I was stating that the push for more than equal rights is less mainstream than you indicated.

The 'non-rich, non-white' issue is simply an expansion into more diverse areas than traditionally covered by feminist theory. It is not a reasoning for greater rights than men, it is just a diversification of focus.

 

[funkshen]

I don't think they're deserving of anything more than equal treating. I agree with you on that point. I was stating that the push for more than equal rights is less mainstream than you indicated.

The 'non-rich, non-white' issue is simply an expansion into more diverse areas than traditionally covered by feminist theory. It is not a reasoning for greater rights than men, it is just a diversification of focus.

is the push for more than equal rights not mainstream, or less mainstream? if so, by how much?

as for third wave feminism, so what? we're talking about political programs here, and third wave feminism simply isn't one. they have very few cogent aims, and the ones they might have (such as decriminalising sex work) can hardly be called feminist platforms, more civil libertarian. so you have the sex party i.e. the feminist party who pretty much have a civil libertarian platform... but also want shit like corporate and political gender quotas which poisons their program.