-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Beyond Feminism.
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
I know I'm a male feminist but can somebody give me a gun and put me in a uniform? I want to bomb somewhere after reading about all that "niceness" to reassure myself it hasn't affected my manhood.
[p.s. this is a bad joke btw. using the word "bomb" can be mis-understood. opps!]
[p.s. this is a bad joke btw. using the word "bomb" can be mis-understood. opps!]
Last edited:
To be fair, not all current flavors of feminism are radicals pursuing loopy agendas.
If we judge by the lightning rods who interest the media, then we succumb to the spotlight fallacy.
A year or so ago, I searched the internet, & found about 2 dozen feminist classifications.
(There are even "libertarian feminists"....a type of extreme radical I like.)
Some feminists & non-feminists here have argued that feminism is this or that.
But it's false for them to speak for others.
Btw, at the moment, my signature is.....
Women have always been the primary victims of war.
Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.
- Hillary Clinton
How's that for an extreme feminist perspective?
Aye, I was just adding to your post (no criticism).
Beneath the comedy of her ignoring greater suffering by the men who die than the women who survive them,
the greater irony is that she's a hawk, who played a role in creating the very problem she complains of.
I'm not so much bothered by her beiong another Clinton.
Her malevolence stands on its own, outside of hubby's shadow.
Good frubalworthy call on the further implications of her quote, btw!
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I agree that the word Feminism doesn't agree with its stated goals. Defining Masculinism as being profoundly oppressive against women doesn't work in opposition to what the writer defines as Feminism. To meet the definition of being opposite, Feminism would have to be defined as a system that is profoundly oppressive against men. A system that works to have both sexes be nice to each other needs to have a different label than Feminism.
From what I have seen, "men's rights" movements, or a lot of those movements that brand themselves as "masculinists," are misogynistic, sexist, and rife with insecure males and women who support patriarchy and wish to put down other women who disagree with it.
Aye, it appears (in media & internet forums) that those who identify with a gender oriented movement ("feminism", "masculinism") tend to treat it as a us-against-them war, with invented & exaggerated claims of being the victim. The open hostility so prevalent in the most fervent of them serves no one.
The word "feminism" doesn't preclude being nice to men, contrary to what some people think. Advocating women's rights doesn't have to happen at the expense of men's rights.
I really mostly see opposition to feminism from sexists and misogynists, be they men or women. I don't think any feminist should be apologetic about the label or its implications as being primarily in favor of women's rights.
Wouldn't it also be that opposition to masculinism is from sexists & misandrests, be they men or women?
Those who advocate for men's (& women's) rights shouldn't have to endure endless continual attacks from
fervent feminists, who should be on the same side.
Since much of what constitutes "masculinist" movements seems to be filled with misogyny and sexism, I wouldn't say so.
What percentage of feminist movements as a whole engage in these "endless continual attacks"?
If that's what one looks for, then that's what one will see.
Feminism suffers from the same problem, ie, that those who hate it will notice the worst examples of it.
I can't quantify such a thing.
Personally, I see more sexism in so-called men's rights movements than in the feminist movement as a whole.
But that was obviously what you did when you classified the perceived attacks on men as "endless" and "continual."
In what I observe on RF, feminism is far more hostile than those advocating for men's rights.
The argument of obviousness means that "endless & continual" means it is measured & quantified?
No, that is not a rational inference.
The last time I saw anything resembling misandry from a self-identified feminist here was years ago. Compare that to the amount of misogynistic posts we see... well, let's just say that I don't think there's much of a comparison to begin with.
If they are "endless" and "continual," then there are obviously many of them. I don't see how that is not a quantification of them.
Some of us see a less prejudicial picture.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I agree. But I've seen some chilling posts on youtube from feminists that want to kill all the men, or at the least label every male as a rapist.
Feminism can't have it both ways. As it stands now, it is (and I believe should be) primarily in favor of women's rights. But to claim that it is also for men's rights is absurd. Logically if it was also for men's rights, the feminism label is a fail. The label doesn't represent the men that it claims to represent.
I've seen rational videos from several females like Laura Southern and Karen Straughan expressing their opposition of feminism and their reasoning.
Random people commenting on the Internet, especially in the notorious YouTube comment section, are not really representative of the feminist movement as a whole. That's like saying that the religious and atheist trolls on YouTube are evidence that the labels "religious" and "atheist" carry negative connotations.
Well, it is not against men's rights as some people seem to think. Focusing on women's rights doesn't mean it is opposed to men's rights.
If they are opposed to feminism, I seriously doubt their arguments are rational. Nevertheless, would you mind summarizing some of their arguments that you have found convincing?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
That's because you're too immersed in the intergroup dynamics.
You're minimizing the negative aspects of your in-group and the positive aspects of the out-group, and you're maximizing the positive aspects of your in-group and the negative aspects of your out-group.
Both groups are pretty awful if you see them from an outside perspective.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
I'm a feminist largely because nature is. Males are slowly going extinct as the Y-chromosome is weakening and dying over the next 250 or so thousand years. Women are smarter, able to utilize both sides of their brains more efficiently, and make 90% of sexual choice.
Over the course of the next hundred years or so, women should really capitalize on their advantages and force men into subservience (I don't mean slavery, though that may be a prudent measure, but merely a reverse of the patriarchy of about 300 years ago). This system would have the advantage of allowing the more intelligent and thoughtful gender make worldwide, governmental decisions and putting men where they belong--as colder, more removed logicians with a narrower and less useful perspective.
Once science advances to the point of "fooling the senses" men will be controlled by whatever agency can best predict what pornographic models best make addicts of testosterone junkies.
Women will soon rule the world and men as it should be and as it will be regardless of what we may think.
Over the course of the next hundred years or so, women should really capitalize on their advantages and force men into subservience (I don't mean slavery, though that may be a prudent measure, but merely a reverse of the patriarchy of about 300 years ago). This system would have the advantage of allowing the more intelligent and thoughtful gender make worldwide, governmental decisions and putting men where they belong--as colder, more removed logicians with a narrower and less useful perspective.
Once science advances to the point of "fooling the senses" men will be controlled by whatever agency can best predict what pornographic models best make addicts of testosterone junkies.
Women will soon rule the world and men as it should be and as it will be regardless of what we may think.