Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[May90]

Democratic republic of north Korea

The definition of feminism is equal rights for woman, not for men. And because It means that feminism isn't about equality between the sexes but for equal rights for woman.

What the hell does "equal rights for woman" mean? Equal to what? You seriously do not seem to understand what "equal" means.

I will tell you equal to what.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism
"equal to those of men"

Stop fooling around and accept that you are wrong. Is English not your first language? If so, go read the definition of "equal" right now. I linked one, but you didn't get it. Here is another one:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equal

There is simply no way to change only the female rights to be the same as the male ones, that would mean that the male ones are perfect, and we both know that they are not.

If female rights are the same as male rights, it would mean that male rights are perfect? What??????

[Deleted]

What the hell does "equal rights for woman" mean? Equal to what? You seriously do not seem to understand what "equal" means.

I will tell you equal to what.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism
"equal to those of men"

Stop fooling around and accept that you are wrong. Is English not your first language? If so, go read the definition of "equal" right now. I linked one, but you didn't get it. Here is another one:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equal


If female rights are the same as male rights, it would mean that male rights are perfect? What??????

You link this and you can not seriously see how wrong you are!?!??? Lets rewind, again.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism

1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3.
Older Use. feminine character.

So let us see, that means that, when A=12345 and B=12567 and when you give the rights of A to B you will have A=1234567 and B=12567.

Because:

Yes, changing women's rights doesn't change men's rights.

Now, seeing as feminism has never campaigned for less rights or privileges they are not for equality of the sexes, but rather a womans rights group, just as the definitions says it is.

If all you do is change the female rights to be exactly the same as the male rights, this would mean that you think that the male rights must all be perfect and that some rights that woman have, and that men do not, are really invalid perks and need to go. Why else would you want to change womans rights exactly the same as male rights. And as feminism isn't campaigning for male rights, and as

Yes, changing women's rights doesn't change men's rights.

, means that feminism isn't about equal rights between the genders.

It is really not rocket science, you just have to let go of the precious idea that feminism is about equal rights between the genders.

[Talsar]

What the hell does "equal rights for woman" mean? Equal to what? You seriously do not seem to understand what "equal" means.

I will tell you equal to what.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism
"equal to those of men"

Stop fooling around and accept that you are wrong. Is English not your first language? If so, go read the definition of "equal" right now. I linked one, but you didn't get it. Here is another one:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equal


If female rights are the same as male rights, it would mean that male rights are perfect? What??????

Let it go may, If he hasn't got it by this point i doubt he's capable of getting it x_x

[May90]

You link this and you can not seriously see how wrong you are!?!??? Lets rewind, again.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism

1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3.
Older Use. feminine character.

So let us see, that means that, when A=12345 and B=12567 and when you give the rights of A to B you will have A=1234567 and B=12567.

When you give the rights of A to B, you have A=12345 and B=1234567. This is not equality, and hence this contradicts the definition of feminism. To satisfy the definition of feminism, you should have A=B, hence you have to remove 34 and add 67. THIS is what feminism is about by definition, and not what you think it is.

Now, seeing as feminism has never campaigned for less rights or privileges they are not for equality of the sexes, but rather a womans rights group, just as the definitions says it is.

If all you do is change the female rights to be exactly the same as the male rights, this would mean that you think that the male rights must all be perfect and that some rights that woman have that men do not are really invalid perks and need to go. Why else would you want to change womans rights exactly the same as male rights. And as feminism isn't campaigning for male rights, and as , means that feminism isn't about equal rights between the genders.

It is really not rocket science, you just have to let go of the precious idea that feminism is about equal rights between the genders.

What self-proclaimed feminist organizations campaign about is absolutely irrelevant to what feminism is. Just like me calling myself a billionaire is absolutely irrelevant to the definition of a billionaire. When you talk about definitions, you talk about definitions, mathematically and linguistically precise constructs that are not affected by anything that goes on in the world.

I'm not sure if you've ever taken any college-level math courses, but they would teach you these things. When you say that by definition 2^4=2*2*2*2, you do not mean that, "Ah, the definition says this, but in real world it can be different", you mean that 2^4=2*2*2*2 regardless of anything. It is an abstract construct; it can be applied to real world, but it can't be changed by real world.

It does NOT matter what self-called feminists do, at all, with relation to what feminism is.

And yes, I absolutely agree that many self-called feminist organizations are not about equality.

Let it go may, If he hasn't got it by this point i doubt he's capable of getting it x_x

Never give up, never surrender!

[Bushtuckrman]

I stay as egaltarian as much as possible while maintaining the fact that men and women are different as we have different levels of chemicals that affect how our brains work. Also I take into account that men and women, thanks to those chemicals have different physical attributes. Other than that I take the 2 genders as egalitarian as possible.

[Deleted]

When you give the rights of A to B, you have A=12345 and B=1234567. This is not equality, and hence this contradicts the definition of feminism. To satisfy the definition of feminism, you should have A=B, hence you have to remove 34 and add 67. THIS is what feminism is about by definition, and not what you think it is.


What self-proclaimed feminist organizations campaign about is absolutely irrelevant to what feminism is. Just like me calling myself a billionaire is absolutely irrelevant to the definition of a billionaire. When you talk about definitions, you talk about definitions, mathematically and linguistically precise constructs that are not affected by anything that goes on in the world.

I'm not sure if you've ever taken any college-level math courses, but they would teach you these things. When you say that by definition 2^4=2*2*2*2, you do not mean that, "Ah, the definition says this, but in real world it can be different", you mean that 2^4=2*2*2*2 regardless of anything. It is an abstract construct; it can be applied to real world, but it can't be changed by real world.

It does NOT matter what self-called feminists do, at all, with relation to what feminism is.

And yes, I absolutely agree that many self-called feminist organizations are not about equality.


Never give up, never surrender!

IF, this is really so indicative about feminism then where are the outraged feminist demanding that they get the same harsh sentences as their male counterparts?? Where are the enraged feminists that demand more male reproductive rights? Or where are the outraged feminists that are lobbying for less rights for woman? Harsher sentencing for them? It doesn't happen, it never happens, not ever. According to you they should be collectively be foaming at the mouth by now, because equality, right!?

What feminism is, is a womans rights group, nothing more nothing less. But it has jack shit to do with equality.

You can call other feminists that do not agree with you "not a true feminist" just like the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy that we are all so aware off. But in reality, that is feminism, it doesn't matter if you like it or not, those people are just as much a feminist as you are.

A definition is the whole definition and not just a little bit of the definition, this should be obvious. But at the same time you forget that its a womans rights group, not a gender equality group. That is really all there is to this.

Oh, and that there never has been any form of feminists cry about male rights being less isn't the fault of "self proclaimed feminists" but rather of all feminists (that is, if feminism where to be for equality between genders).

[May90]

IF, this is really so indicative about feminism then where are the outraged feminist demanding that they get the same harsh sentences as their male counterparts?? Where are the enraged feminists that demand more male reproductive rights? Or where are the outraged feminists that are lobbying for less rights for woman? Harsher sentencing for them? It doesn't happen, it never happens, not ever. According to you they should be collectively be foaming at the mouth by now, because equality, right!?

What feminism is, is a womans rights group, nothing more nothing less. But it has jack shit to do with equality.

You can call other feminists that do not agree with you "not a true feminist" just like the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy that we are all so aware off. But in reality, that is feminism doesn't matter if you like it or not, those people are just as much a feminist as you are.

A definition is the whole definition and not just a little bit of the definition, this should be obvious. But at the same time you forget that its a womans rights group, not a gender equality group. That is really all there is to this.

Once again, there is a difference between the abstract definition of feminism (which is linked in the dictionaries; it is a whole definition, linguistically precise and complete, you can't put or add a single word to it that would change the meaning; the word "equality is there for a reason, and you can't ignore it, as you try to do), and the practice of self-proclaimed feminist organizations.

Yes, while I do not know much about these movements, I would absolutely expect a large percentage of them to have little to do with equality. It is not uncommon for organizations to proclaim following some noble idea and use this claim to pursue their selfish goals. However, by definition, it does not make their actions aligned with feminism; it makes them turned against it.

There is no "true" or "untrue" feminism. There is only feminism and not feminism. An idea you are fighting for either aligns with feminism or does not. Once again, feminism has a linguistically precise definition; you can do whatever you like in this world, but the definition stays, and you can't change it with your actions

Yes, it is about "women's rights", and reading the whole definition would tell you what exactly women's rights it advocates for - the ones equal to men's rights. Once again, the definition is complete and self-sufficient; you don't get to randomly cut off parts of it and claim that those parts are the definition. You have to use the whole definition, and if you do so, then you will notice the word equal, the words "men's rights", and figure it out. It is not that hard, just need to stop trying to "win" the argument and actually try to interpret the definition right.

[Deleted]

Once again, there is a difference between the abstract definition of feminism (which is linked in the dictionaries; it is a whole definition, linguistically precise and complete, you can't put or add a single word to it that would change the meaning; the word "equality is there for a reason, and you can't ignore it, as you try to do), and the practice of self-proclaimed feminist organizations.

Yes, while I do not know much about these movements, I would absolutely expect a large percentage of them to have little to do with equality. It is not uncommon for organizations to proclaim following some noble idea and use this claim to pursue their selfish goals. However, by definition, it does not make their actions aligned with feminism; it makes them turned against it.

There is no "true" or "untrue" feminism. There is only feminism and not feminism. An idea you are fighting for either aligns with feminism or does not. Once again, feminism has a linguistically precise definition; you can do whatever you like in this world, but the definition stays, and you can't change it with your actions

Yes, it is about "women's rights", and reading the whole definition would tell you what exactly women's rights it advocates for - the ones equal to men's rights. Once again, the definition is complete and self-sufficient; you don't get to randomly cut off parts of it and claim that those parts are the definition. You have to use the whole definition, and if you do so, then you will notice the word equal, the words "men's rights", and figure it out. It is not that hard, just need to stop trying to "win" the argument and actually try to interpret the definition right.

I'm not ignoring anything, but you are ignoring the simple fact that it says for woman in there. It doesn't say "between man and woman" because that would mean what you think that "for woman's" means. So it is a LOBBY GROUP FOR WOMAN TO GET EQUAL RIGHTS TO THOSE OF MEN, it doesn't say anything about men getting the same rights as females. You should really go watch "animal farm" and look at how some are more equal then others.

The next bit is the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy, and as i have showed you many times by now, feminists definition has nothing to do with equality between the sexes, as it is a woman's rights group, just like the definitions explains that it is.

There is, otherwise you can't say anything about "self proclaimed feminism" in the first place.

Again, womans rights being equal to men's rights doesn't mean that man are equal to woman as again.

Yes, changing women's rights doesn't change men's rights.

I do not cut off any part, that is your thing, if something is only about woman, then it has nothing to do with equality, period.

[May90]

I'm not ignoring anything, but you are ignoring the simple fact that it says for woman in there. It doesn't say "between man and woman" because that would mean what you think that "for woman's" means. So it is a LOBBY GROUP FOR WOMAN TO GET EQUAL RIGHTS TO THOSE OF MEN, it doesn't say anything about men getting the same rights as females. You should really go watch "animal farm" and look at how some are more equal then others.

The next bit is the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy, and as i have showed you many times by now, feminists definition has nothing to do with equality between the sexes, as it is a woman's rights group, just like the definitions explains that it is.

There is, otherwise you can't say anything about "self proclaimed feminism" in the first place.

But women's rights being equal to men's rights is exactly the same as the equality of rights between men and women; it is a definition of equality, A=B. Not A=B and something more, but A=B. Equality, period.

Animal Farm exactly makes fun of some people's misunderstanding of the word "equality" - or, rather, of communist governments perverting this word.

Again, womans rights being equal to men's rights doesn't mean that man are equal to woman as again.
I do not cut off any part, that is your thing, if something is only about woman, then it has nothing to do with equality, period.

Equal rights is a state, it is not a dynamic act. When you say that women's rights equal to men's rights, you mean that they are equal at this very moment. It has nothing to do with changing what accomplishes what; it is the ultimate goal, something you strive with your actions to make true.

And you are wrong. Once again, "equal" means "the same", exact same. Women's rights being equal to men's rights, by definition, means that women and men have the same set of rights. It does not mean that women have the same rights as men, plus something extra; no, there is no extra, there is the exact equality, one-in-one.

How do you obtain this equality? You look at what rights men have and make sure that women have the same rights, PLUS you look at what rights women have and men don't and either advocate for men gaining these rights too, or for women losing these rights. THIS is feminism.




Please, try to understand what "equal" means. There are many definitions, many explanations available. "Equal" doesn't mean "including", it means "the exact same".

[Deleted]

But women's rights being equal to men's rights is exactly the same as the equality of rights between men and women; it is a definition of equality, A=B. Not A=B and something more, but A=B. Equality, period.

Animal Farm exactly makes fun of some people's misunderstanding of the word "equality" - or, rather, of communist governments perverting this word.


Equal rights is a state, it is not a dynamic act. When you say that women's rights equal to men's rights, you mean that they are equal at this very moment. It has nothing to do with changing what accomplishes what; it is the ultimate goal, something you strive with your actions to make true.

And you are wrong. Once again, "equal" means "the same", exact same. Women's rights being equal to men's rights, by definition, means that women and men have the same set of rights. It does not mean that women have the same rights as men, plus something extra; no, there is no extra, there is the exact equality, one-in-one.

How do you obtain this equality? You look at what rights men have and make sure that women have the same rights, PLUS you look at what rights women have and men don't and either advocate for men gaining these rights too, or for women losing these rights. THIS is feminism.




Please, try to understand what "equal" means. There are many definitions, many explanations available. "Equal" doesn't mean "including", it means "the exact same".

That is not how any of this works, really, its not like there are package deals or anything. The way it happens is as followed, feminists start yelling "we can't vote" (notice how i actually picked something that they said and was one of their very few good point!?) So they start to be al "rebel rebel" about it and the end result is that they get the right to vote. And then this line continued, now, after 70 years we are stuck at a point where feminism has lobbied solely for the benifit of woman in society.

No, im right again, they are equal at that singular point, that is how it works. They see a right that they do not have but men do, they complain about it and get the right, now they have that right equal. It doesn't say anything about males or males rights in there. They only thing they strive for is to make females have all the same rights and privileges as males have. And now again....

Yes, changing women's rights doesn't change men's rights.

Equal is discussed point by point and not in a package deal, the equal rights are things that are done one right at a time, thus, they are making females have equal rights as males have. But that doesn't say anything about the equal rights males have to females, because it is a womans rights group.

The claim you make of reverse rights just never happens, thus you come up way way short on the equality scale.

[Bushtuckrman]

@May90 and @MeHMeH

I agree with you both but disagree somewhat with you both. In the end feminism is like many movements, it starts off great and then it gravitates to the extreme. While you both won't understand this comparison I liken it to work place movements like Occupational Health and Safety and Management structures. While they are needed and of course welcomed in a logical way, its all too easy for those involved to take it way too far into the realms of the obscene. As in, should men and women who are the citizens of the same nation be allowed to vote? Yes, of course! Should men and women both be afforded the same levels of education and employment opportunity's if they can pass the same standard? Yes, of course! Should men and women be allowed to be as promiscuous sexually as they wish? Yes, of course! Should women be regarded as physically empowering as men? No, of course not!

Egaltarianism has to deal with the reality that while men and women are equal on most things, there are others where either the male or female are better than the other. It is as simple as that. Men make better decisions in some enviroments, women make better decisions in other enviroments. Men are outright better in physical situation than the sheer majority of women and in other situations women are far better. A mature realisation needs to be accepted that there is a difference between men and women and that there are roles and situations while one gender exceeds over the other. When it comes to physical strength or determination to take risk and succeed even after failure, testosterone has shown to be the superior chemical and that is what we men have in spades over women. This is a fact that needs to be accepted, we do think differently, we do act differently and physically we are very different to each other. There is nothing wrong with that because evolutionary speaking, we are supposed to be different and we are supposed to excel at different roles and situations.

So while I am egalitarian as much as possible, these simple facts of biology simply needs to be accepted. Like the first female Navy SEAL who had the bar lowered for her because she could not compete on par with men. It's just a simple fact. In some instances, men are better at decision making than women. In some instances, women are better at decision making than men. At some instances men are better than women in certain job roles, in some instances women are better than men in certain job roles. That's evolution for you and evolution cannot be sexist.

[May90]

That is not how any of this works, really, its not like there are package deals or anything. The way it happens is as followed, feminists start yelling "we can't vote" (notice how i actually picked something that they said and was one of their very few good point!?) So they start to be al "rebel rebel" about it and the end result is that they get the right to vote. And then this line continued, now, after 70 years we are stuck at a point where feminism has lobbied solely for the benifit of woman in society.

No, im right again, they are equal at that singular point, that is how it works. They see a right that they do not have but men do, they complain about it and get the right, now they have that right equal. It doesn't say anything about males or males rights in there. They only thing they strive for is to make females have all the same rights and privileges as males have. And now again....

This is how it happens in practice with self-proclaimed feminist groups, I suppose. But this is not how it is to happen in actual feminism. Once again, real world groups do not change the definition of feminism.

Equal is discussed point by point and not in a package deal, the equal rights are things that are done one right at a time, thus, they are making females have equal rights as males have. But that doesn't say anything about the equal rights males have to females, because it is a womans rights group.

Absolutely - but that is not what the definition implies. "Equal rights" is not "set of rights including equal rights", it is "equal set of rights".

Here is how an actual feminist group should work. They should always keep the overall picture in mind. Initially, females had fewer rights than males, so it made sense to focus on purely giving them the rights men already have. Nowadays, it is much more equal, so it makes sense to offer package deals now instead: every time they advance women's rights, they should also advance men's rights in some way. Just because self-proclaimed feminist groups do not do that, doesn't mean that feminism isn't about it - it simply means that they aren't about feminism.

What you tend to call feminism is more like what people call feminazism: advance women's rights as far as possible and spit on men's rights. It has nothing to do with feminism by definition whatsoever.

snip

This is actually a big point of arguments in everything related to equality. Since some groups of people have biological differences between them, shouldn't we be trying to make the set of rights that will make them overall equal, instead of focusing on abstract equality and ignoring those differences, that might give one of the sides natural advantage? I am not sure what my stance on this is: I don't think biological differences should be ignored, but I also wouldn't want to see them affect much in terms of law and social treatment.

[Deleted]

@May90 and @MeHMeH

Oh i do agree with you, but the argument i have with May90 is not about that. Its basically about how (according to may90)feminism is this all encompassing thing for gender equality, and that they only strive for total equality between the sexes. And im trying to explain how this is not the case.
The thing feminism does is that they want equal rights for woman, and this is no where the same as equal rights between men and woman.

There will always be differences between man and woman, and this is not a bad thing at all. But it should not be that there are rules made that explicitly exclude one of the two sexes event hough it appears they have "the same rights". I am saying we should have equal rights, and i despise MRA movements almost as much as feminism, but that doesn't matter. In the end we should discuss it all on one table, that of egalitarianism, but this can only happen when feminist are willing to actually talk instead of spouting some nonsense and scream "equality".

[Bushtuckrman]

This is actually a big point of arguments in everything related to equality. Since some groups of people have biological differences between them, shouldn't we be trying to make the set of rights that will make them overall equal, instead of focusing on abstract equality and ignoring those differences, that might give one of the sides natural advantage? I am not sure what my stance on this is: I don't think biological differences should be ignored, but I also wouldn't want to see them affect much in terms of law and social treatment.

I think it needs to be accepted in a mature manner. As in the outright biological differences need to be accepted as fact when it comes to certain aspects but maturity needs to be maintained in this as not to think one sex is inferior because one sex has the biological advantage on some aspects over the other. This is what I like about the traditional family unit, when the male had his role in providing financial stability and the female provided her role in family upbringing and order, to me both are just as important for a family unit to function successfully. Sometimes I blame feminism for forcing the almost entire destruction of the traditional family unit where in this age the husband and wife needs to work just to be able to financially upkeep their family but I can't help but feel that there was other forces and influences that forced this change in the family unit which worked so well for so long.

[May90]

The thing feminism does is that they want equal rights for woman, and this is no where the same as equal rights between men and woman.

It is EXACTLY the same. Equal rights for woman to those of man = equal rights of man to those of woman = equal rights between man and woman. Definition of "equal" demands that.

[Deleted]

This is how it happens in practice with self-proclaimed feminist groups, I suppose. But this is not how it is to happen in actual feminism. Once again, real world groups do not change the definition of feminism.


Absolutely - but that is not what the definition implies. "Equal rights" is not "set of rights including equal rights", it is "equal set of rights".

Here is how an actual feminist group should work. They should always keep the overall picture in mind. Initially, females had fewer rights than males, so it made sense to focus on purely giving them the rights men already have. Nowadays, it is much more equal, so it makes sense to offer package deals now instead: every time they advance women's rights, they should also advance men's rights in some way. Just because self-proclaimed feminist groups do not do that, doesn't mean that feminism isn't about it - it simply means that they aren't about feminism.

What you tend to call feminism is more like what people call feminazism: advance women's rights as far as possible and spit on men's rights. It has nothing to do with feminism by definition whatsoever.


This is actually a big point of arguments in everything related to equality. Since some groups of people have biological differences between them, shouldn't we be trying to make the set of rights that will make them overall equal, instead of focusing on abstract equality and ignoring those differences, that might give one of the sides natural advantage? I am not sure what my stance on this is: I don't think biological differences should be ignored, but I also wouldn't want to see them affect much in terms of law and social treatment.

And there you go with the logical fallacy again, it is precisely what happens in feminism, it has nothing to do with your "no true Scotsmen" fallacy.

No it is not an equal set of rights, it is equal rights. Singular, and because of this you get the whole uneven thing that we see today. Then you go to describe how no actual feminist group has ever worked, but yet somehow, that is what they are according to you. I call feminism what feminism is, if you can not see your self as the thing that is described then i suggest you find another group to identify yourself with, i would advocate egalitarianism as that group actually is for equal gender rights, in its definition.

What you say about unequal rights for woman, that hasn't been the case for a long long time and in the past 30 years it has pretty much revered (that is almost half of the 70 years!). Now males have the short end of the stick, why hasn't feminism changed into what you say feminism is and start to campaign for male rights? I have never seen any form of lobbying like that by them, and they never will.

- - - Updated - - -

It is EXACTLY the same. Equal rights for woman to those of man = equal rights of man to those of woman = equal rights between man and woman. Definition of "equal" demands that.

No it is not, because

Yes, changing women's rights doesn't change men's rights.

,
The definition demands that all rights that males have are demanded by feminist to count for females as well. It says nothing about the reverse, no matter how much you claim otherwise.
What you describe has NEVER EVER HAPPENED, NOT EVEN ONCE IN 70 YEARS BY COUNTLESS GROUPS OF FEMINIST. Yet you claim that this is exactly what they do.

[May90]

And there you go with the logical fallacy again, it is precisely what happens in feminism, it has nothing to do with your "no true Scotsmen" fallacy.

No it is not an equal set of rights, it is equal rights. Singular, and because of this you get the whole uneven thing that we see today. Then you go to describe how no actual feminist group has ever worked, but yet somehow, that is what they are according to you. I call feminism what feminism is, if you can not see your self as the thing that is described then i suggest you find another group to identify yourself with, i would advocate egalitarianism as that group actually is for equal gender rights, in its definition.

What you say about unequal rights for woman, that hasn't been the case for a long long time and in the past 30 years it has pretty much revered (that is almost half of the 70 years!). Now males have the short end of the stick, why hasn't feminism changed into what you say feminism is and start to campaign for male rights? I have never seen any form of lobbying like that by them, and they never will.

Equal rights = equal set of rights. If you have all elements of one set equal to all elements of another set, then the sets are equal. If the sets aren't equal, then you do not have elements of the set equal, hence you don't have equal rights.

What you imply by "equal rights" would be better expressed by "shared rights", and it is nowhere close to "equal rights".

We are talking about the definition here. You keep bringing up the examples of self-proclaimed feminists' actions, which are completely irrelevant to the definition.

No it is not, because ,
The definition demands that all rights that males have are demanded by feminist to count for females as well. It says nothing about the reverse, no matter how much you claim otherwise.
What you describe has NEVER EVER HAPPENED, NOT EVEN ONCE IN 70 YEARS BY COUNTLESS GROUPS OF FEMINIST. Yet you claim that this is exactly what they do.

It does say about the reverse; that's what the word "equal" implies... And no, I do not claim that's what someone does, I claim that's what feminism prescribes.

---

This is going around in circles, and it is purely coming from two mistakes on your part:
1. You define the word "equal" wrong.
2. You do not understand how definitions of words function in the real world.
As such, I do not see the point of continuing this discussion.

[Deleted]

I think it needs to be accepted in a mature manner. As in the outright biological differences need to be accepted as fact when it comes to certain aspects but maturity needs to be maintained in this as not to think one sex is inferior because one sex has the biological advantage on some aspects over the other. This is what I like about the traditional family unit, when the male had his role in providing financial stability and the female provided her role in family upbringing and order, to me both are just as important for a family unit to function successfully. Sometimes I blame feminism for forcing the almost entire destruction of the traditional family unit where in this age the husband and wife needs to work just to be able to financially upkeep their family but I can't help but feel that there was other forces and influences that forced this change in the family unit which worked so well for so long.

To be fair, those other forces had a much bigger hand in the abolishment of the traditional family. They have pretty much doubled the workforce while not having to pay nearly as much as lets say the 1980's, before this really took shape.

- - - Updated - - -

Equal rights = equal set of rights. If you have all elements of one set equal to all elements of another set, then the sets are equal. If the sets aren't equal, then you do not have elements of the set equal, hence you don't have equal rights.

What you imply by "equal rights" would be better expressed by "shared rights", and it is nowhere close to "equal rights".

We are talking about the definition here. You keep bringing up the examples of self-proclaimed feminists' actions, which are completely irrelevant to the definition.


It does say about the reverse; that's what the word "equal" implies...

---

This is going around in circles, and it is purely coming from two mistakes on your part:
1. You define the word "equal" wrong.
2. You do not understand how definitions of words function in the real world.
As such, I do not see the point of continuing this discussion.

But that just isn't the way it works, it is done one right at the time. And the right discussed is always a right or privilege that benefits females. The whole set of rights is never compared, its always one right at a time, and never the other way around.

What i say isn't "shared rights", those are rights both males and females have, what i describe is "equality for woman's rights to males rights".

Yes we are talking about the definition here, and it is a sneaky one that implies equality where there is none to be found. The difference is in the word "to", equality to man means that they want the same rights as man have. Equality between implies that both are equal, but that is not what the definition says.

No it doesn't say anything about the reverse, because that is not what "equality to" means, that is what "equality between" means. And that still doesn't take away the fact that this has never happened.

I am the only one here who understands what these words mean, you are the one who refuses to acknowledge how the things that you say should happen never happen and how you do not understand the difference between "to" and "between".

[Bushtuckrman]

It is EXACTLY the same. Equal rights for woman to those of man = equal rights of man to those of woman = equal rights between man and woman. Definition of "equal" demands that.

It depends on how you apply the term 'equal'. Similar to my first reply. There are certain aspects, especially in the realms of physical prowess and 'determination' where men outshine women. There are even studies that show that in the business world, female CEO's have higher levels of testosterone and hence why they succeed in what is traditionally a male dominated environment. When it comes to aspects that involve empathy, women mostly outshine men because estrogen tends to give women and also men with higher than average amounts of estrogen an empathetic outlook on subjects.

I think the mindsets of both men and women are different and I think both mindsets should be treated equally to obtain a balance because roughly there are as many men as there are women in our society and hence both mindsets should carry equal weight. I just wish that there was a much more mature acceptance that there are things that both men and women are equal at and there are things that one gender excels at over the other gender while at the same time neither sex is inferior for that reason alone.

As I said earlier, there are people who think that the other sides opinion should be wholly discarded and that I believe is wrong. I gave a business analogy earlier and this time I will give a race analogy. Some people believe that you cannot be racist against whites and there are a lot of articles and social media postings that support that many people have that mindset even though it is incorrect. The same applies to this subject, as another example when it comes to sex many millennial feminists feel that if a male and a female are both drunk and they have sex, if the female regrets this decision post coitus then the male has committed rape even though both were in the same intoxicated state.

I just had a bottle of JD, does this make sense to you both? It's how I have always thought on this subject of equality. It is almost like 'I believe in equality but I also accept the fact that we are different and not everything can be equal but physically and psychologically and that needs to be accepted as fact'.

[Mehrunes]

I see May is once again full of "acknowledgment" that his cherry-picked definition is not the be all, end all of feminism. Fascinating.

Yes, changing women's rights doesn't change men's rights. Rocket science. What does it have to do with anything? You can change women's rights to be completely equal men's rights without even touching men's rights, I already explained it to you like 50 times - still, it eludes you.

And how does feminism go around this, you think? By bringing women up to the level of men. They are very clear about that most of the time. That still leaves areas where women already have it better, which for the most part they pretend don't exist. Bringing women down in this areas is not exactly on their menu and it certainly won't be popular in their own support base. And the feminist campaigning for men's rights in these areas is, let's just say, rare. Well, still better than championing for lowering women's rights, I guess, since that is basically nonexistent. But of course ze definition says something else so the way feminism goes at things will totally result in total equality regardless of what feminists actually campaign for thanks to magic or angels.

I won't be providing any examples to you, because they have nothing to do with discussion. People above mentioned feminists campaigning for draft for women, or canceling of it for men, for example - but you don't care about it, do you?

Doesn't fit his agenda, so he conveniently pretends that never happened.

What's with this forum's obsession with US when feminism is concerned. Whoopty doo, one example. And in the exact same area in other countries they did the opposite. In Austria (at least I think it was Austria) it was female vote that left conscription the way it is.