"Feminism is not man-hating".

[Zharradan]

man can be criticized and nobody bats an eye, but if a woman is criticized everybody say it's sexism and rape

i could list at least 100 examples that happen everyday that show woman have it easier than man.

[Deleted]

With a negative mindset maybe! Sure, there will always probably some jerks somewhere who would think they're better, but I mean in general. Like, no need for movements to reform things and what not.

What would you say is "true equality"? Lots of those I talk to wants it to be 50/50 in jobs etc and say it's not equality if it's not 50/50. To even get there, you'd have to heavily discriminate against the other.

Latest complaint I heard was about the "lack of females" in the parliament, completely ignoring we vote for a person. If the amount of women decrease in the parliament it's because nobody voted the women in.

[Aqueous]

I don't understand that mindset - My wife is a feminist and she showed me that Emma Watson article last night. We both work full time six figure jobs and share all the responsibilities of child raising, housekeeping, and finances. Granted my ex-wife was more like the type of woman you're explaining...and might I say there's a reason she's an Ex-Wife.

I agree, it's just because people are often very complex, divisive within themselves and messed up.

A person can have two completely mutually exclusive opinions at the same time. It's mental but so are we haha.

But I am the same. I could give two shits about gender, race, height, weight, earnings, clothing brands, hair colour - whatever. Unfortunately I seem to be one of only about 10-15% of the population in that regard, if that.

[Vordie]

Because someone without the authority to make a judgement, especially one without any evidence to support it other than emotions, should not make that judgement, and would not be able to competently do so anyways.

Exactly what is this "judgement" you speak of? And why does she not have the authority to voice her own opinion? She's not forcing feminism on people.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I don't think or believe feminism is a man hating movement. But I do think and believe there is a man hating movement that hides behind feminism.

[Lolretadin]

The feminist answer for why men are the dispensable sex is because of the patriarchy. Basically the difference between those feminists that believe in equality (and I know there are those that don't just like there are men's rights activists that are anti-equality) and an egalitarian is that feminists believe that the primary cause of the inequality of the sexes is the patriarchy, which enforces gender roles and said gender roles are the reason for most of the inequality in modern society.

Which is an odd reason, because I've never even seen any trace of a patriarchy that is oppressing men and women. Sargon of Akkad has a humorous video talking about it.

[Chain Chungus]

What's funny about that whole thing is that the flip side is that men ARE indeed judged if they're not "successful enough" and such, so it's no wonder some of them start to feel threatened.

Which is exactly why it needs to be retooled into an inclusive movement where men and women are together fighting for the rights of the other.

[Lolretadin]

Exactly what is this "judgement" you speak of? And why does she not have the authority to voice her own opinion? She's not forcing feminism on people.

She doesn't have the authority to make the judgement that "feminism is not man-hating," especially not when the movement has constantly tried to paint all men as potential rapists.

[OreoLover]

What i mean by that statement is that traditionally men have always been dispensable since really the beginning. We have been the ones fighting wars, being given the most dangerous jobs, we are more likely to be the victims of violently crime, have higher suicide rates, have about the same rates as being diagnosed with prostate cancer as women do breast cancer.... yet six times more is spent on breast cancer research....... It's hard not to feel like you don't actually matter to society when you are a man, where as women are essential for our continued existence.

A lot of equality fights have been waged on being able to do those, and as per the OP / Emma Watson: "men do not have the benefits of equality, either"; it would help equalize men in terms of addressing (and more funding for) our sex-specific cancers, lowering our suicide rates, etc. Equality can be win-win.

[Aqueous]

I don't understand that mindset - My wife is a feminist and she showed me that Emma Watson article last night. We both work full time six figure jobs and share all the responsibilities of child raising, housekeeping, and finances. Granted my ex-wife was more like the type of woman you're describing...and might I say there's a reason she's an Ex-Wife.

Oh, the fact you're six figure earners might...erm...account for some of it haha. In other words, you're still pretty damn successful at least from an earnings point of view.

[Deleted]

in my opinion none should be treated equal and i tent not to treat anyone equal but all have the same options to get treated as they want.
people are different and therefor should be treated differently.

i agree that all should have the same chances for jobs and the like in any job that is not a muscle mass type of job as there is a biological differences there that makes a difference but that is the only place i can think off and to my memory there are not a lot of those left.

there is a "few" places where i think the equality in how the system's can look a little differently on the genders where they should not.

[Deleted]

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, is the key to understand this bullshit.

Man is LE gender, not the humankind... a way to treat a slave, a low being.

also my sign.

[Lolretadin]

Which is exactly why it needs to be retooled into an inclusive movement where men and women are together fighting for the rights of the other.

What the movement needs is a reformation. One in which clear, well defined, goals are set and a hierarchy is put into place. Currently feminism is ambiguous and, because of it, you end up with people like Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, and PZ Meyers leading the charge. What's more, you end up with a movement in which they cannot denounce anyone because there is no actual authority that allows them to do so; inclusivity is not always a good thing.

[Aqueous]

Which is exactly why it needs to be retooled into an inclusive movement where men and women are together fighting for the rights of the other.

A la Egalitarianism.

Although I think in time it will become the primary movement. Once things even out a bit I think.

- - - Updated - - -

in my opinion none should be treated equal and i tent not to treat anyone equal but all have the same options to get treated as they want.
people are different and therefor should be treated differently.

i agree that all should have the same chances for jobs and the like in any job that is not a muscle mass type of job as there is a biological differences there that makes a difference but that is the only place i can think off and to my memory there are not a lot of those left.

there is a "few" places where i think the equality in how the system's can look a little differently on the genders where they should not.

Well equality and difference don't have to be mutually exclusive. Treating people how they treat you is an example of equal treatment because the grounds you base your judgments on are equal for all people.

[seta-san]

feminism by it's definition isn't.. in practice it is. Feminism turns into man hating and man shaming as soon as you insert patriarchy theory into the mix. basically all of academic feminism is man hating. Need to get back to equality feminism that Christina Hoff Summers advocates.

[Deleted]

I agree with feminism, as it's really just egalitarianism. I think they need to re-brand themselves as egalitarians. "Feminism" is a lost cause.

This really bothers me. Why does it need rebranded? The "crazies" are not crazy because it's called one thing and not another, and the people who see all feminists as the crazies do not do so simply because it is called feminism and not something else, even if some would tell themselves that.

Think of it like warhammer 40k. You have space marines, and then chaos space marines who are the crazy omnicidal maniac offshoot. Now, anyone looking at the situation from the outside would be like "Woah, you guys have a pretty bad chaos problem guys" - and indeed, many of the xenos filt.. I mean, many of the aliens just see the lot as all human, regardless. So suppose space marines decided to "rebrand" themselves as "star soldiers!" instead... then what? Does that make the chaos go away? Of course not, in doing so you also rebrand all the chaos marines as chaos star soldiers as well, not to mention it's not like there are just a fixed number of them and if you can push them aside no more will pop up. They're going to keep... recruiting so long as they exist and no matter what they are called, and people are always going to see them as humanity's embarrassing mistake. So what do they do instead? They take their title of space marines, even if it's a title partly shared by the crazies, and wear it as armour. They are unapologetic in their unwavering faith to their cause, and use that faith to PURGE THE HERETICS. Which is what we should be doing with "crazy" feminists.

[Dundebuns]

I still think Feminism is a weird word to use for striving for Female/Male equality...

She covers this, saying there isn't a better word for it yet, but there is a movement for it now.

[Bullettime]

A la Egalitarianism.

Although I think in time it will become the primary movement. Once things even out a bit I think.

Exactly. Rebranding the movement has no real downsides except a more annoying name. It would have mass support from both males and females and would cut out the cancer that is the vocal Tumblr feminists undermining the entire movement and making it look like a man hating joke.

[Chain Chungus]

What the movement needs is a reformation. One in which clear, well defined, goals are set and a hierarchy is put into place. Currently feminism is ambiguous and, because of it, you end up with people like Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, and PZ Meyers leading the charge.

Agreed. The tail doesn't know what the head is doing atm.

A la Egalitarianism.

Although I think in time it will become the primary movement. Once things even out a bit I think.

- - - Updated - - -



Well equality and difference don't have to be mutually exclusive. Treating people how they treat you is an example of equal treatment because the grounds you base your judgments on are equal for all people.

Yea. Let's hope it becomes primary.

We can have those differences but still be able to have the same rights.

[Kruncholyo]

I'd refer to what Revi posted:
Few people have an issue with legitimate feminist issues. It's the "fake internet-feminists that just generate outrage and drive page hits by creating a very "Us vs. Them" situation and vilifying the "ebil mens" while not even addressing any actual feminist issues" that get people annoyed, and for good reason.

I agree that legitimate equality issues are common ground for the majority of non-tribal/primitive belief system dwellers.

However, the crazy feministing thing is not confined to 'fake internet-feminists,' but supposedly scholarly and very well paid and very well respected (within academia) people write and push antisocial crap like this:

“I want to ask heterosexual academic feminists to do some hard analytical and reflective work. To begin, I want to say to them:
“I wish you would notice that you are heterosexual.
“I wish you would grow to the understanding that you choose heterosexuality.
“I would like you to rise each morning and know that you are heterosexual and that you choose to be heterosexual — that you are and choose to be a member of a privileged and dominant class, one of your privileges being not to notice.
“I wish you would stop and seriously consider, as a broad and long-term feminist political strategy, the conversion of women to a woman-identified and woman-directed sexuality and eroticism, as a way of breaking the grip of men on women’s minds and women’s bodies, of removing women from the chronic attachment to the primary situations of sexual and physical violence that is rained upon women by men, and as a way of promoting women’s firm and reliable bonding against oppression. . . .
“There is so much pressure on women to be heterosexual, and this pressure is both so pervasive and so completely denied, that I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
– Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980